Posted on 06/27/2018 7:04:17 AM PDT by luv2ski
JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court. Under Illinois law, public employees are forced to subsi dize a union, even if they choose not to join and strongly object to the positions the union takes in collective bar gaining and related activities. We conclude that this arrangement violates the free speech rights of nonmem bers by compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern. We upheld a similar law in Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U. S. 209 (1977), and we recognize the importance of following precedent unless there are strong reasons for not doing so. But there are very strong reasons in this case. Fundamental free speech rights are at stake. Abood was poorly reasoned. It has led to practical problems and abuse. It is inconsistent with other First Amendment cases and has been undermined by more recent decisions. Developments since Abood was handed down have shed new light on the issue of agency fees, and no reliance interests on the part of public-sector unions are sufficient to justify the perpetuation of the free speech violations
But remember that Justice Alito was W’s second choice. The first: Harriet Miers.
Unions say that reasoning is flawed. Nonmembers are already entitled to refunds of payments spent on political activities, like advertising to support a political candidate.
Collective bargaining is different, the unions say, and workers should not be free to reap the benefits of such bargaining without paying their fair share of the costs.
Not tired yet.
5.56mm
Well, opting out won’t be an issue. Alito has ruled that members must opt in.lol...he’s no dummy! So, that bit of scheming is for naught:)
Do you ever notice how, when it’s 5-4 for us, every headline is “narrow decision” or “deeply divided court”, when it’s 5-4 for them, it’s “God has spoken, now shut up”.
All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.
Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that “under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government.”
—FDR
Best if employees were simply asked (privately), do you want to continue being a member of a union, yes/no.
And, like we recently saw with the federal government, no union business on government time, no union offices, nothing.
But, alas, we'll see this battle fought over coming years.
I remember. *shudder*
So, you think court ruling will mean No Funds to Unions here-forward without Opt-In first? I doubt it. That would be fantastic if all funds immediately stopped and then only restarted with a verifiable Opt-In.
I wonder if this opens the door for new collective bargaining organizations to spring up. More conservative groups could organize, and employees could opt to join one of them, or none at all. Could get interesting.
Okay, where is the text for Opt-In. I just did quick keyword search and cannot find anything close. Where and how does it say that people must opt in? And is this for future employees or for current union members? Do current union members get presumed opt-in or do they now need to register to opt in?
A
M
E
N
!
Hold on...I’ll find it- it’s there.
Top of the hour at CNN and PMSNBC. Neither has talked about the supreme court decision.
CNN is making up lies about the DT/Putin meeting ...
It's OK
Just apply a good lathering of Schadenfreude salve.
The WINNING is wide and deep
Still waters run deep
Watch the water
Okay, will Trump and his cabinet order all union payments to stop UNTIL a government employee Opts-In? It would be great if they set that standard and trend.
Wow! That means public sector employees everywhere should be getting big increase in they paychecks next payday. The clarity of that ruling means that no organization can simply take the money out as if the ruling had not occurred and then hope the employee is too stupid to ask for it back.
Yes! Just found it and was about to post to you! Alito is so matter-of-fact about it, as if....come on, man.
Beautiful! Thank you.
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.