"KILL SHOT"
Posted on 06/28/2014 10:59:30 AM PDT by jazusamo
The Supreme Court will make its most important ruling in labor law in decades next week when it weighs in on a right-to-work case that could determine whether non-union workers can be compelled to pay public sector union dues.
Courts for years have recognized the rights of unions to ask non-members to pay dues for union negotiating costs, but a group of home healthcare workers in Harris vs. Quinn are challenging dues they pay to a branch of the Service Employees International Union as a violation of free speech.
The case is pitting business groups and the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation against labor giants like the SEIU, which worry the court could rule broadly to prevent all non-members of public sector unions from being compelled to pay dues. Such a decision from the court, which is expected to rule on Monday, could deliver a “kill shot” to organized labor at a time when it is already struggling with a declining membership.
Still, some labor supporters say they’re anticipating a loss.
“I expect the worst,” said Ross Eisenbrey, vice president of the progressive Economic Policy Institute.
The case was brought by Pamela Harris, who receives money from the state of Illinois to take care of her son.
Workers like Harris were once seen as independent contractors, but Illinois’s legislature in 2003 passed a law deeming them public employees. This forced people like Harris to have fees from their Medicare checks withheld as payment to the SEIU, which had the responsibility of representing all workers who were subject to the 2003 law.
Harris and others are arguing this represents a violation of their free speech. They say the state law compelled them to be represented by a union and to pay fees.
“That's a huge injustice to force people to pay dues to a union that they want nothing to do with,” said Patrick Semmens, spokesman for the National Right to Work (NRTW) Legal Defense Fund.
A ruling that just affects the Illinois home workers might have a modest impact on labor law, but a broader ruling that prevents public sector unions from collecting dues from non-members could take millions of dollars out of their coffers.
“We're concerned, but it's certainly not going to stop workers from coming together with their unions and fighting to improve their jobs and the quality of public services,” said Judy Scott, general counsel at SEIU, which is a defendant in the case.
Eisenbrey argues the case is part of an effort by big business to further weaken unions.
“It's part of a corporate campaign to weaken or kill unions wherever they can, however they can,” Eisenbrey said. “It's a complete attack on all of the improvements in labor standards that have been made over the last 50, 60 years.”
Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia could prove to be the swing vote, experts say.
In a 1991 Supreme Court case, Scalia argued it is reasonable for unions to collect fees from non-union members to cover their negotiating costs. Then, during oral arguments for Harris vs. Quinn in January, Scalia's questions led some believe he is leaning in this direction once again.
Eisenbrey called Scalia “the hope.”
“In this case, Scalia may actually end up being a swing vote who actually sides with the more liberal members of the court and, of course, workers,” said Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project (NELP).
I am so sick of all these stupid expressions which I do not understand, what the hell is a kill shot
Let me get this straight, this “mom” gets paid by the state for taking care of her own child...............uh......ok
In my view a good many headline writers need a kill shot.
Bump.
LOL! Right on!
see post#24, ref. “Kill Shot”. 8^)
Let me get this straight, this “mom” gets paid by the state for taking care of her own child...............uh......ok
Pam Harris (this mom) states (in a comment following the article) that her son is “significantly disabled”, so it’s likely disability checks. Right or wrong, many families with disabled children do receive disability checks from the state.
Sounds like she doesn’t want to have to be forced to be considered a union member, and have said dues deducted from these checks.
Kind of an odd way to put it. The question is not whether non-members can be asked to pay dues, it's whether they can be compelled to do so.
no, that is not it, I believe she gets paid as a carer under Medicaid to take care of her own son. Her son doesn’t get disability because I believe he hasn’t worked enough quarters to qualify for disability.
Ask? Nobody ever asked me. They just took it.
Shame to see SEIU lose all the money, eh? Yes, let it be!
Yep...It's bad enough in the private sector but when it comes to public sector unions it's no different than robbery in my view.
I believe she gets paid as a carer under Medicaid to take care of her own son. Her son doesn’t get disability because I believe he hasn’t worked enough quarters to qualify for disability.
Benefits for Children With Disabilities
http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10026.pdf
Beat me to it. JFK’s exec order allowing government unions should be rescinded.
As to private unions, in many cases, they’ve gone too far, although there are occasional pockets of labor abuse where some collective changes—maybe not union action—is warranted. Graduate schools are one. Twenty years ago, the way medical interns were treated was another.
But by and large, you’re right, and almost every experience I’ve had with unions was one of exclusive, entrenched featherbedding.
How come no GOP President ever rescinded that EO? They could do that without Congress, right?
Good question.
IMHO—and this isn’t a legal answer—the government unions are so established that they would go absolutely batshit. It would be tied up in the courts for years, and the MSM would be totally sympathetic.
No guts, no glory, I guess.
That is taught after capitalization and punctuation.
You simply haven't reached that level yet.
folk off
There, see?
You've got an incomplete "sentence", no capitalization and no punctuation.
And you wonder why there are things you don't understand?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.