in the vicinity
To listen to the Supreme Court, the trade Union challenge
Conservative majority could be allowed to overturn a four-decades-old Supreme court judgment to collect that trade unions in the public sector fees from non-members to cover the cost of the negotiation of contracts for all employees.
A $45 monthly fee could end up costing a great work in the billion. Public unions will always be nervous to ask for while those who don’t like the way you work, which can be free of charge and lunch will soon be over.
An explosive case in relation to employees of the government and the First amendment that the Supreme court will hear on Feb. 26 could lead to a redefinition of the relationship between public unions and workers.
The applicant, Mark Janus is working on the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services and did not know how, that a certain amount was deducted from his salary — he doesn’t think he should be forced to pay Union dues or fees just to work for the state. He did not agree with the 1.3 million-member AFSCME union policy, and so believed, under the First amendment, he could not be forced to wear.
In his court filing, Janus, Thomas Jefferson, said as quoted, “to force, to deliver a man, the contribution of money for the dissemination of opinions, which, he believes, is sinful and tyrannical.”
Public sector unions are braced for a big impact in the potentially landmark Supreme Court case called Janus v. AFSCME. #court matter https://t.co/EurLvWamwS
— Why courts Matter, OH (@courtsmatterOH) 8. February 2018
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Janus’ argument, and the Supreme court agreed to hear his appeal.
If the Supreme court rules for Janus, it could have a big impact on the unions. Without additional fees, EU funding reduced by leaps and bounds. States workarounds could try — the number of workers less rather than a deduction from your paycheck, and passing the savings on to the trade unions — but could be politically tricky.
“The merits of the case, and 40 years of Supreme Court precedent, the sound are right on our page,” said Lee Saunders, president of AFSCME.
For Saunders, the strong unions are important because they provide “strength in numbers [of workers] need to fight for the freedom they deserve,” such as health and retirement plans.
“The merits of the case, and 40 years of Supreme Court precedent, the sound are right on our side.”
– Lee Saunders, president, AFSCME
The Central issue in “Janus” is: Should overrule the court’s 1977 decision “Abood v. Detroit Board of Education”? In “Abood,” the Supreme court explained that a teacher could be required to pay fees to public unions has spent so long as the money, on the cost of collective bargaining and related issues, and not on ideological causes.
Court watchers may be a déjà-vu of “Janus” – in the past few years, has looked to the Supreme court at this question a couple of times.
Harris v. Quinn “(2014)” where the court found that the non-unionised workers could not be forced to pay fees to the unions, even though they received compensation from public sources, which was determined by collective bargaining. The case was decided 5-4, with the five judges, in General, as the conservative Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — consisting of the majority and the four justices generally considered liberal, Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor — dissenting.
The judges of the Supreme court of the United States gather on 1. June 2017, for a formal group picture: Seated, left to right: Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg; Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy; Chief Justice John Roberts; Associate Justice Clarence Thomas Associate Justice Stephen Breyer. Standing, from left: Deputy justice Elena Kagan; Associate Justice Samuel Alito, Jr.; Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Associate Justice Neil from gorsuch.
(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
More to the point, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association” (2016), asked whether a school district that employees, join the Union or pay a fee violates their First Amendment rights to freedom of expression and Assembly.” In other words, the court is invited to reconsider, “Abood.”
And you would have done just that, except that Associate Justice Scalia died before the case can be decided. This, the court split with four liberals and four conservatives, so that they are not just a one-line opinion, upheld the lower court’s decision, leaving the question for another day.
And now, with “Janus”, that day has come.
The biggest change since “Frederick” is not the facts of the case, but the makeup of the court. Scalia has been replaced with Associate Justice Neil from gorsuch, and many believe that he is tilting the fifth vote to “Abood.” To replace (if President Barack Obama’s election, Scalia, Merrick Garland, had sitting, it is possible that the court would not hear “Janus”.)
In fact, many experts of the decision, see the case as a sign that the court is willing, on the side of Janus and move your models.
As Fox News legal analyst judge Andrew Napolitano notes, “justice from gorsuch . . . is pretty much a champion of the election of persons to this kind of environment.” Add that to the four judges, which was based already on its way, and it looks like you are ready to the hand of Janus-a victory.
Many States may not be happy with such a verdict, but, as Napolitano notes, the First Amendment replaces the state’s agreements with the work. In fact, Napolitano, a civil libertarian, would hail a decision in the name of Janus, and hopes that “everyone who believes that the First Amendment means what it says, would applaud.”
An argument against a change to “Abood” is that it learned have established law and the States on how to work with it — now is not tilt the time.
A change in the law, many now fear, could be quite a few workers in the freeloaders that don’t have to pay for the unions, but still enjoy the benefits of collective bargaining.
Then there is the assertion that the present-day practices, in accordance with the First Amendment. A person that has argued this in an amicus brief (in the court more than 70 amicus briefs) is Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA and a respected expert on the First amendment issues.
Lee Saunders, president, AFSCME
In fact, Volokh stating to Fox News goes even further than the position the court took in “Abood,” that he believes “that people will pay money, is a First Amendment problem, even if the money is used for ideological expression.” Volokh notes, “we are obliged to pay our taxes….and to Express a part that is to be used, by the government….and this is not regarded as a speech restriction.”
Volokh does not see why union fees should be treated differently.
For his part, Napolitano too much sympathy for these unions can’t special summon, since you have to get in this situation. As he puts it, “some labor leaders believe that this is almost a fatal blow — you know what, that’s your fault….No one] says that the trade unions should exist; you just have to forced to be attractive, so that people voluntarily, rather than under the state.”
Steve Kurtz is a producer for the Fox News Channel, and author of “Steve’s America (the perfect gift for the people, by the name of Steve)”.