Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is the Supreme Court Gunning for Public-Sector Unions?
Reason ^ | July 2 2014 | Damon Root

Posted on 07/02/2014 12:14:51 PM PDT by PoloSec

On Monday the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the state of Illinois violated the First Amendment when it forced home-care workers who receive government stipends to pay union dues to the Service Employees International Union. Writing for the 5-4 majority in Harris v. Quinn, Justice Samuel Alito ruled that the state exceeded its lawful authority by treating such workers as government employees “solely for the purpose of unionization and the collection of an agency fee.”

“If we accepted Illinois’ argument,” Alito explained, “we would approve an unprecedented violation of the bedrock principle that, except perhaps in the rarest of circumstances, no person in this country may be compelled to subsidize speech by a third party that he or she does not wish to support.” Thus, “The First Amendment prohibits the collection of an agency fee from personal assistants in the Rehabilitation Program who do not want to join or support the union.”

It was a resounding defeat for the public-sector union movement, which no longer will enjoy the government-backed power to automatically enlist such workers in its ranks. But as Ned Resnikoff, a liberal critic of the Court’s ruling, pointed out as MSNBC, the decision “could have been worse” for public-section unions.

Indeed it could. Also at issue in Harris was the scope of a 1977 Supreme Court precedent known as Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. In that case, the Court held that state employees who refuse to join the union may still be compelled to pay union dues. “‘The primary purpose’ of permitting unions to collect fees from non­members,” the Court said in Abood, “is ‘to prevent nonmembers from free-riding on the union’s efforts, sharing the employment benefits obtained by the union’s collective bargaining without sharing the costs incurred.’”

In Harris, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to revisit the propriety of its ruling in Abood. In Monday’s decision, however, Justice Alito declined the opportunity to overrule that 1977 precedent. Yet despite leaving Abood on the books, Alito still spent nearly four pages of his Harris opinion detailing what he sees as Abood’s failures and shortcomings, including the fact that “a critical pillar of the Abood Court’s analysis rests on an unsupported empirical assumption,” and the fact that the Court “did not foresee the practical problems that would face objecting nonmembers.” As Alito put it, “the Abood Court’s analysis is questionable on several grounds.”

What does this sharp language mean for the future of public-sector unions, which depend on Abood for mandatory union dues? Cato Institute legal scholar Andrew Grossman, who filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to overturn Abood, believes Monday’s decision in Harris may signal a future ruling that “would spell the end of compulsory support of public-sector unions.” As Grossman argues:

While Harris is not a watershed opinion that remakes labor law consistent with First Amendment principles, it does put an end to the forced unionization of home-based workers, a practice that has spread to nearly a dozen states and had provided a substantial number of new workers to the labor movement in recent years. Harris also lays the groundwork for a challenge to what it calls “Abood’s questionable foundations.” If recent Roberts Court precedents like Shelby County and Citizens United are any guide, Harris is a warning shot that the Abood regime is not long for this world and that the next case will be the one to vindicate all public workers’ First Amendment rights.


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: gubbamint; public; unions

1 posted on 07/02/2014 12:14:51 PM PDT by PoloSec
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: PoloSec

I certainly hope so.


2 posted on 07/02/2014 12:16:05 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PoloSec
Even FDR thought public employee unions were bad.
3 posted on 07/02/2014 12:17:26 PM PDT by fireforeffect (A kind word and a 2x4, gets you more than just a kind word.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PoloSec

Removing the requirement to pay union dues does not eliminate the union, imho. The whole notion of collective bargaining in government employment needs to be OUTLAWED. PERIOD.


4 posted on 07/02/2014 12:17:41 PM PDT by SgtHooper (This is not my tag!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PoloSec

The country will be a better place if unions withered on the vine. They may have served a purpose, but now they simply cause harm.


5 posted on 07/02/2014 12:20:02 PM PDT by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SgtHooper

At the very least, employees should get to vote regularly (at least every two years) to keep the union, or shut it down. Where I worked at a state university, we NEVER had that option once we were unionized. I’m sure many who voted for the union originally would’ve loved to get back out when they saw what they’d be paying in dues.


6 posted on 07/02/2014 12:22:44 PM PDT by Twotone (Marte Et Clypeo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

"One nation under God.."



click the pic
help keep the lights on
donate today!


7 posted on 07/02/2014 12:23:04 PM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PoloSec

Public sector unions should be outlawed until such a time that taxpayers are allowed to vote up/down on their contracts!

If they want to make demands of the taxpayers that pay them, then WE should have the right to reject their demands!


8 posted on 07/02/2014 12:24:08 PM PDT by Beagle8U (Unions are an Affirmative Action program for Slackers! .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Indeed - public sector unions are inherently a corrupt concept.

You have two groups, unions and government, “negotiating” against a third party, the tax payer.


9 posted on 07/02/2014 12:25:01 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SgtHooper

Exactly .. and the other issue is NOBODY CAN GET FIRED.

First you have to file a grievance .. etc., etc., etc.

That can takes months and years. Finally, the person still does not get fired for committing any kind of crime.

They usually just get transferred.

THAT HAS GOT TO CHANGE.

AND .. ADD THE FACT THAT THESE UNIONS ARE THE FUNDRAISING ARM OF THE DEMOCRATS.


10 posted on 07/02/2014 12:26:28 PM PDT by The Final Harvest (True the Vote: " MY AMERICA, ... I'm terrified it's slipping away.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Bingo! They get to elect those they bargain with, and company that allowed the union employees to hire the CEO would go bankrupt.


11 posted on 07/02/2014 12:27:58 PM PDT by Beagle8U (Unions are an Affirmative Action program for Slackers! .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MrB

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=the+machine%2c++the+truth+about+teachers+unions&FORM=VIRE3#view=detail&mid=5C7DEC82E1E46303B6605C7DEC82E1E46303B660


12 posted on 07/02/2014 12:29:35 PM PDT by Beagle8U (Unions are an Affirmative Action program for Slackers! .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: fireforeffect

F.D.R. Warned Us

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/18/the-first-blow-against-public-employees/fdr-warned-us-about-public-sector-unions

When government unions strike, they strike against taxpayers. F.D.R. considered this “unthinkable and intolerable.”


13 posted on 07/02/2014 1:09:17 PM PDT by TurboZamboni (Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.-JFK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SgtHooper
The whole notion of collective bargaining in government employment needs to be OUTLAWED. PERIOD.

/echo. Glaring conflict of interest.

14 posted on 07/02/2014 1:42:31 PM PDT by VRW Conspirator (Global Warming is caused by illegal immigrants!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PoloSec

Let’s hope so!


15 posted on 07/02/2014 1:53:20 PM PDT by jmaroneps37 (Conservatism is truth. Liberalism is lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PoloSec

If they aren’t, they should be.


16 posted on 07/02/2014 2:07:01 PM PDT by Tax-chick (If I die before I wake, feed Jake.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PoloSec
Is the Supreme Court Gunning for Public-Sector Unions?

Time to resurrect this gem.
From our arguably most famous historical liberal :

FDR, on Public Employee Unions

Which, I might add, applies to public employee unions at all levels. More so than ever, today.

17 posted on 07/02/2014 2:58:50 PM PDT by publius911 ( Politicians come and go... but the (union) bureaucracy lives and grows forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson