Supreme Court holds public sector unions in the balance

MSNBC ^ | June 29, 2014 | By Ned Resnikoff

[Oldeconomybuyer]

The future of public sector unions is in the hands of the Supreme Court, which is expected to rule Monday on a key case that could send shockwaves throughout organized labor.

The Supreme Court has the power to make that happen. Depending how the nine justices rule in the Harris v. Quinn case, it is possible that automatic dues deduction could become a thing of the past for public sector unions.

The head plaintiff in the case is Pam Harris, an Illinois-based home care worker who says automatic dues deduction violates her First Amendment rights.

For the purposes of collective bargaining, Harris – whose job consists of caring for her son in her own home – is an employee of the state. The union, SEIU (Service Employees International Union), that represents publicly employed home care workers in Illinois automatically deducts Harris’ membership dues for her paychecks.

“I object to my home being a union workplace,” Harris told NPR in January, around the time the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case.

[BuckeyeTexan]

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

[Monorprise]

“I’ve read that Scalia is the wild card..guess based on questions he was asking during oral arguments. Hoping they get this one right, public sector unions should be banned.”

Its not really the business of the Federal court to say this, but to take someone’s money or asset against their will is thief.

A any organization or individual, labor union or otherwise, that forces people to part with their money or just control of their property has in fact committed an act of theft.

If a labor union is to operate legitimately it must operate within the bounds of the free will and rights of its members.

A labor union thus could exist among the willing, just as it could act among those same willing’s power to act collectively. But they must never force employees to join them, nor must they ever force employers to act.

Their power must be based upon the employers choice of firing them all and starting from scratch or consenting to their demands.

[CharlesWayneCT]

There should be no such thing as a public employee union.

Unions exist in order to provide an organization that can compete in size with the private companies that want to hire workers, so as to give workers some power to dictate better terms.

The union gets power from the government, since it is the government that enforces the rights of the unions.

So, the government is seen as the benevolent protector of the workers. Therefore, people working for the government are working for their own protector, and don’t need a union. If they don’t like how they are treated, they can also use the political process.

It would be like people working for a union wanting to unionize to protect themselves from the union.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I don’t believe Scalia would have been for defining people as “public employees” for some purposes when they don’t qualify for any of the benefits that come from being a public employee.

I could see this case being decided very narrowly on those grounds, without actually getting rid of public unions or their forced dues.

Most people think the forced dues is the issue, but I think the court could simply rule on the definition of an “employee” instead.

That would be the easiest way to drag Scalia to the majority, if he otherwise was going to side with the union.

If Alito is writing the opinion (and circumstantial evidence suggests so since he hasn’t written any yet) it should be bad for the union at least partly, because Alito seemed clearly for the plaintiffs in the case. He wouldn’t get Hobby Lobby because it is too big a case, Roberts would want that one.

[EDINVA]

There seems to be a new twist on social services whereby if you have a disabled family member, YOU can care for him/her and be paid. The cost is still substantially lower than paying for professional service, and it’s not financially disastrous to the family as it would be if a breadwinner had to quit a salaried job to care for the disabled.

Since that person receives a govt check (probably thru SSI), SEIU got into the act to extract ‘dues.’ Hopefully, they’re shut out tomorrow. Please, God!

[Jim Robinson]

Prayers up!

[wetgundog]

Harris v. Quinn case ...
also nicknamed the Jenny Grandmole law named after a Canadian cur bitch who was elected in Michgan to steal money from home care workers to fund her buddy turds in the Public sector unions.

Unions are about to be “blown away!”

[editor-surveyor]

Money laundering.

A racketeering criminal enterprise.
.