Breaking!!! SCOTUS rules against big labor!

[Hoodat]

Finally found the decision.

Janus v. AFSCME

[edpc]

While good news, I think it's ridiculously sad that we have to hang every shred of what remains of our liberty on what 9 justices in black robes have to say.

He takes a lot of heat for his 2A postings, but that's essentially what @Jazzhead has said about SCOTUS rulings.  A 5-4 ruling shows it can change with political winds in the not too distant future.

[thackney]

That is exactly right @thackney and now they can no longer extract dues from non members as they are currently doing.  It's a BIG deal.

I agree it is a big deal.  But only in states that already allowed people not to join the union.

[INVAR]

Especially when four are rabid ideologues, the farthest thing in the world from jurists. Its almost a farce.

But we gotta play the hand we're dealt.

I'm more interested in the mindset of the populace who ascribes such power over our inalienable Rights to those Nine as being Infallible once they rule.

So much so, that when the SCOTUS goes beyond their Constitutional bounds to 'fix' legislation to make it 'legal', and create 'rights' out of thin air while diminishing the enumerated ones, that the population either applauds it or shrugs their shoulders and accepts it because they believe the Court has that power.

[Hoodat]

This is from Kagan's dissent.  Her words showcase the exact same argument for keeping slavery intact in the mid-nineteenth century:

Rarely if ever has the Court overruled a decision—letalone one of this import—with so little regard for theusual principles of stare decisis. There are no specialjustifications for reversing Abood. It has proved workable.No recent developments have eroded its underpinnings.And it is deeply entrenched, in both the law and the realworld. More than 20 States have statutory schemes built on the decision. Those laws underpin thousands of ongoing contracts involving millions of employees.

[Just_Victor]

I agree it is a big deal.  But only in states that already allowed people not to join the union.

So are you saying that membership in the union can still be compulsory?

[thackney]

So are you saying that membership in the union can still be compulsory?

@Just_Victor @Bigun @Frank Cannon

I learned more reading the actual judgement.  I was wrong.

For these reasons, States and public-sector unions may no longer
extract agency fees from nonconsenting employees. The First
Amendment is violated when money is taken from nonconsenting
employees for a public-sector union; employees must choose to support
the union before anything is taken from them. Accordingly, neither
an agency fee nor any other form of payment to a public-sector
union may be deducted from an employee, nor may any other attempt
be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively
consents to pay.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf

[txradioguy]

This is from Kagan's dissent.  Her words showcase the exact same argument for keeping slavery intact in the mid-nineteenth century:

It's like she's channeling Justice Taney in 1850 in Dread Scott v. Sanford

[INVAR]

@Just_Victor @Bigun @Frank Cannon

I learned more reading the actual judgement.  I was wrong.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf

Nothing from stopping private companies from requiring Union Membership and Dues paying in order to be hired and employed at the facility. 

Unless this ruling applies to private companies that use union labor also.

Perhaps this is the avenue the unions will look to shake down to hold onto what power they have.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Mark my words:

The union-controlled states will pass a "union tax:" any person who opts out of a labor union must pay a tax equal to the dues of the union in their company.

This will be based on Roberts and the Obamacare precedent.

That will get shot down on the exact same basis as this case.  I think Roberts was wrong in the Obamacare case, but at least there was a somewhat legitimate argument that it was a tax, not a penaltry.  But taxing people because they don't belong to a labor union just doesn't get you in the universe of it being a tax rather than a penalty.  And I know I'll get a bunch of cynical responses...but that's not happening.

[edpc]

@Just_Victor @Bigun @Frank Cannon

I learned more reading the actual judgement.  I was wrong.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf

Why does it continually mention 'public sector' unions, specifically?  Are unions like the UAW still allowed to continue the practice?

[Hoodat]

More from Kagan's dissent:

I begin with Abood, the 41-year-old precedent the majority overrules.

Plessy v. Ferguson was a 56-year-old precedent before Brown.  Would she offer this same comment in defense of segregation?

That case involved a union that had been certified as the exclusive representative of Detroit’s publicschool teachers. The union’s collective-bargaining agreement with the city included an “agency shop” clause, which required teachers who had not joined the union to pay it “a service charge equal to the regular dues required of nion members.”

The union had no right to formulate an agreement with the city with regard to compulsion of non-union employees.  This is no different from Britain, France, and Germany negotiating away Czechoslovakia.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I agree it is a big deal.  But only in states that already allowed people not to join the union.

N0 -- the decision applies to government workers in all states, regardless of whether or not they are Right to Work.  Employees now have the right not only to refuse to join the union, but to refuse to pay any agency fee to the union.

[Hoodat]

More from Kagan's dissent:

But for an exclusive-bargaining arrangement to work,such an employer often thought, the union needed adequate funding. Because the “designation of a union as exclusive representative carries with it great responsibilities,” the Court reasoned, it inevitably also entails substantial costs.

In other words, a union's need for money supersedes the Bill of Rights.

[Bigun]

More from Kagan's dissent:

In other words, a union's need for money supersedes the Bill of Rights.

The crying and knashing of teeth is just beginning!  Wait a day or two.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Why does it continually mention 'public sector' unions, specifically?  Are unions lime the UAW still allowed to continue the practice?

Yes.  The case does not affect private sector unions because there is no "state action" that implicates the Constitution when you're talking about private sector labor agreements.  And trust me on this, I'm a labor lawyer.

Some states have "Right to Work" laws that permit employees to opt out of joining unions and not pay anything.  Such laws usually (but not always) apply to both public and private sector unions.  Without a Right to Work law, private sector employees can be required to join the union.

Public sector law is a bit different.  Employees can never be required to join the union, even if there is no "Right to Work" law.  However, employees who chose not to join the union still could be required to pay a "fair share" fee (usually around 90%) , which is supposed to be that percentage of union dues that goes only to representational activities, such as negotiating contracts.  The purpose of that was to prevent the employees from being compelled to contribute to a public sector union's political activities.  Truth is, there was always a shitload of overlap.  Anyway, because public sector employees could be required to pay that fair share fee, most just joined the union anyway.  And that is what has changed.

What this decision said is that public sector employees cannot be required to pay even this fair share fee.  They can opt-out completely from paying anything at all to the union.  This is really huge politically, because public sector unions are the most powerful of all Democrat constituencies.  The result of this is that those unions will lose an awful lot of membership over time.

[thackney]

Yes.  The case does not affect private sector unions because there is no "state action" that implicates the Constitution when you're talking about private sector labor agreements.  And trust me on this, I'm a labor lawyer.

Some states have "Right to Work" laws that permit employees to opt out of joining unions and not pay anything.  Such usually (but not always) apply to both public and private sector unions.  Without a Right to Work law, private sector employees can be required to join the union.

Public sector law is a bit different.  Employees can never be required to join the union, even if there is no "Right to Work" law.  However, employees who choose not to join the union still could be required to pay a "fair share" fee (usually around 90%) , which is supposed to be that percentage of union dues that goes only to representational activities, such as negotiating contracts.  The purpose of that was to prevent the employees from being compelled to contribute to a public sector union's political activities.  Truth is, there was always a shitload of overlap.  Anyway, because public sector employees could be required to pay that fair share fee, most just joined the union anyway.  And that is what has changed.

What this decision said is that public sector employees cannot be required to pay even this fair share fee.  They can opt-out completely from paying anything at all to the union.  This is really huge politically, because public sector unions are the most powerful of all Democrat constituencies.  The result of this is that those unions will lose an awful lot of membership over time.

Thank you for that info.

[Hoodat]

Why does it continually mention 'public sector' unions, specifically?  Are unions lime the UAW still allowed to continue the practice?

The case with private sector unions is different.  The state does not force non-union employees to pay dues to private-sector unions.  But as far as compulsory union membership goes, this case did not address it.

[thackney]

The case with private sector unions is different.  The state does not force non-union employees to pay dues to private-sector unions.  But as far as compulsory union membership goes, this case did not address it.

So for private industry, some states are still not right-to-work.

[skeeter]

Yes.  The case does not affect private sector unions because there is no "state action" that implicates the Constitution when you're talking about private sector labor agreements.  And trust me on this, I'm a labor lawyer.

Some states have "Right to Work" laws that permit employees to opt out of joining unions and not pay anything.  Such laws usually (but not always) apply to both public and private sector unions.  Without a Right to Work law, private sector employees can be required to join the union.

Public sector law is a bit different.  Employees can never be required to join the union, even if there is no "Right to Work" law.  However, employees who choose not to join the union still could be required to pay a "fair share" fee (usually around 90%) , which is supposed to be that percentage of union dues that goes only to representational activities, such as negotiating contracts.  The purpose of that was to prevent the employees from being compelled to contribute to a public sector union's political activities.  Truth is, there was always a shitload of overlap.  Anyway, because public sector employees could be required to pay that fair share fee, most just joined the union anyway.  And that is what has changed.

What this decision said is that public sector employees cannot be required to pay even this fair share fee.  They can opt-out completely from paying anything at all to the union.  This is really huge politically, because public sector unions are the most powerful of all Democrat constituencies.  The result of this is that those unions will lose an awful lot of membership over time.

I'm wondering what practical effect if any this decision will have on union negotiating activities, specifically, collective bargaining.

[INVAR]

Yes.  The case does not affect private sector unions because there is no "state action" that implicates the Constitution when you're talking about private sector labor agreements.  And trust me on this, I'm a labor lawyer.

Some states have "Right to Work" laws that permit employees to opt out of joining unions and not pay anything.  Such laws usually (but not always) apply to both public and private sector unions.  Without a Right to Work law, private sector employees can be required to join the union.

Public sector law is a bit different.  Employees can never be required to join the union, even if there is no "Right to Work" law.  However, employees who chose not to join the union still could be required to pay a "fair share" fee (usually around 90%) , which is supposed to be that percentage of union dues that goes only to representational activities, such as negotiating contracts.  The purpose of that was to prevent the employees from being compelled to contribute to a public sector union's political activities.  Truth is, there was always a shitload of overlap.  Anyway, because public sector employees could be required to pay that fair share fee, most just joined the union anyway.  And that is what has changed.

What this decision said is that public sector employees cannot be required to pay even this fair share fee.  They can opt-out completely from paying anything at all to the union.  This is really huge politically, because public sector unions are the most powerful of all Democrat constituencies.  The result of this is that those unions will lose an awful lot of membership over time.

I should add -- this is basically doing on the federal level what Governor Walker did on the state level.  And remember how apeshit the left went about that.

Will be interesting to watch what the Democrat Party and the Left do in the wake of this decision.

Might be a call to open warfare as they determine it, since money is the bread and butter of politics - and SCOTUS just took it away from them by handing CHOICE back into the hands of the individual instead of compulsory robbery.

[Restored]

I'm wondering what practical effect if any this decision will have on union negotiating activities, specifically, collective bargaining.

More significantly, this will cost the unions money and they are cash cows for the Democratic party. Expect a major reaction that will loud and full of fury over this. They will accuse Trump of the genocide of Amish children over this. Puppy genocide. Baby manatee genocide. They will peg the unhinged meter because the vast majority of American either don't care about this or support the ruling. The Democrats will have to make them care. The children of union workers will be torn from the breasts of their mothers by Trump and hurled into a raging furnace before the week is over.

 Collective bargaining will still go on.

[DCPatriot]

While good news, I think it's ridiculously sad that we have to hang every shred of what remains of our liberty on what 9 justices in black robes have to say.

Well, sir.... the least you can say, is "Thank You".   

In any event though....you're welcome!

[edpc]

What this decision said is that public sector employees cannot be required to pay even this fair share fee.  They can opt-out completely from paying anything at all to the union.  This is really huge politically, because public sector unions are the most powerful of all Democrat constituencies.  The result of this is that those unions will lose an awful lot of membership over time.

Seems as though it could be particularly encouraging for the future of education.  Some potentially good candidates may have been reluctant to join the profession, due to the stranglehold the union had on it and the political activities to which the had to donate, despite their personal opposition.

[catfish1957]

SCOTUS says, in no uncertain terms, that non union worker cannot be forced to pay dues to a union to which they do not belong!

This is huge.  I have always been a proponent that our loss of industrial base in the past 50 or so years has been that wages are not competitive on a world stage. (Added envirowhacko and lawsuit abuse) Now we get to level the playing field a bit, and I for one do not want to bet against American innovation.