Los Angeles Times: The Supreme Court sounded ready Monday to deal a severe blow to public employee unions by striking down laws that require all workers to help pay for collective bargaining.
In its tone and questioning, the argument resembled more of a congressional hearing at which Republicans took one position, Democrats argued the opposite, and there appeared little chance to sway either side....
The court’s conservative majority, which has long voiced skepticism about mandatory union fees, questioned whether such a distinction was relevant.
“Everything that is collectively bargaining is within the political sphere,” Justice Antonin Scalia said.
So the key question, according to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., is “whether or not individuals can be compelled to support political views that they disagree with.”
Meanwhile, the four Democratic appointees, playing defense, said the court should not upset the 1977 ruling.
California and 22 other mostly “blue” states have union-friendly laws requiring fair-share fees. If the court were to declare them unconstitutional, it would upset “tens of thousands” of contracts, said Justice Elena Kagan, and affect as many 10 million public employees.
Public-sector unions will take a financial hit if the court strikes down the fair-share fees, also known as agency fees. Some public employees might opt to stop paying dues entirely, confident that they will nevertheless receive the benefits of the union’s collective bargaining.
But it is unclear how badly unions will be hurt. The chief justice said he doubted unions were “going to collapse.”
16 comments:
As they should.
The leftwing unions want to force non-union teachers to pay for something they don't want.
Sounds like every leftwing pol who wants to force the American people to work hard so they can steal most of it and pay for stuff we don't want.
Sadly, the leftists on the court will fall in line for their leftist masters.
You can always count on Elana Kagan for the smarts.
California and 22 other mostly “blue” states have union-friendly laws requiring fair-share fees. If the court were to declare them unconstitutional, it would upset “tens of thousands” of contracts, said Justice Elena Kagan, and affect as many 10 million public employees.
Bull crap. It will affect union boss paychecks and perks and democratic money laundering.
April has the right idea, I don’t think that the court should care about the number of contracts that will be upset, they should only be determining if the legislation under review is compatible with the constitution.
I really loathe the teachers unions and the SEIU types, and yet I support the police union and the firefighters union and they should be allowed to collectively bargain for salary and bennies and work safety.
I’m a paradox. Or maybe I’m a fool.
I agree, Jim. If individuals want to work with collective bargaining, fine. I'm not a fan, but as long as it isn't coercive, I'm cool with it.
The pendulum has swung to far, and now for the most part, unions are a fraud and a waste of resources. Teachers unions are the worst. Plus it's no secret where most Teachers union money goes- the top brass and democrat coffers. I'd be pissed if I were forced to pay for that.
Then again, the left are in LOVE with coercion and force. It gets em off.
The leftwing judges on the supreme court are a disgrace.
Imagine if Union dues went to GOP coffers. I think the libs on the Supreme Court would kick their disgusting lock step judicial decision making.
Richard Epstein in possibly the best podcast ever, on the rule of law, covers why labor laws are misguided in the first place. econtalk.org.
Early Epstein, Munger and Kling are great. They run out of material eventually in late podcasts, so those are not wrong but just only quasi-interesting.
"affect as many 10 million public employees."
First, of all affect how, and how much? Would the effect even be negative considering they would get their own money back,and the first amendment rights. Making bank robbery illegal ruins it for the crooks too. So what?
Second, it also effects hundreds of millions of people not with union contracts who would like to get the services they pay for at a reasonable cost without sacrificing everything else valuable that the government needs to do.
Right now public employee contracts are simply destroying the nation with cost, waste, ineffectiveness, and conflict. It's as close to a fatal cancer as a society can get, and we are on life support. They are sucking every tax dollar up, especially at state and local levels, and everybody knows it on both sides. Which must mean that one side is simply evil.
Too far? Tell me why.
As to people like cops and firemen, who we all love of course, they don't need a union either. Police and firework is admirable and nessessary, but it is not the most dangerous work we ask of people. Jobs like fishing, farming, taxi drivers are more dangerous and just as needed. There is no justification for Fire and Police to be handled differently, except that you want the best qualified and motivated people doing it. A union prevents that rather than produce it.
This decision is monumental.
People like me with experience and valuable lessons to teach would love to help with education in our schools, and many of us would do it for free. Unions would never let us in. Multiply that by millions and you get high school graduates who can't offer anything to employers, who can't make or fix anything outside of text message, and who can't even figure out how to manage a bank account or any money they may get. Unions fear people who will help do the job they say they are doing but are not.
The courts decisions to uphold obamacare impact all Americans, but they did it anyway. The decision to see in the constitution that gay marriage was a right also impacted millions of Americans.
I sure hope Kagan either has a better argument, or recuses herself for not being able to uphold her previous ethical standards in this case.
The court is a fickle mistress. One on hand they are skeptical about mandatory fees from Unions, but had zero issue with making it mandatory that every citizen had to buy ObamaCare or be taxed.
" One on hand they are skeptical about mandatory fees from Unions, but had zero issue with making it mandatory that every citizen had to buy ObamaCare or be taxed."
But they are really really smart people. I'm getting to wonder if maybe what we call smart isn't. Either that, or intelligence and education does little to protect us from the power our feels. Maybe the robes, big fancy buildings, and all that expensive wood are there to cover that up.
Isn't the logic of this decision obvious in today's work market. The only reason we need these highly educated people and their fancy process is because that's how we got to the wrong policy in the first place which now clearly needs reversed. We have to pretend it's a hard analysis, and a difficult decision so that the crooks who like the corruption won't be insulted.
So here in Michigan, the Detroit school system has been bankrupted because of the corrupt relationship between the teachers union and local politicians. The state legislature is now debating how the rest us will once again bail out another Detroit fuck up. So what does the criminal Detroit teachers union do while this is going on, they organize a sick-out that closes down 50 Detroit schools. This should not end well for the "teachers".
But hey, what the hell, per state test results, the poor Detroit kids weren't being edjucated anyway.
Post a Comment