Supreme Court throws out ruling in case protecting unions from class-action lawsuits

Washington Examiner ^ | July 02, 2018 | Sean Higgins

[GonzoII]

Organized labor, already reeling from a potentially major financial hit thanks to a Supreme Court ruling last week that could result in millions of public-sector workers cutting off funding, could be subject to another blow from the justices: class-action suits from those workers seeking to get paid back from the unions.

In a little-noticed action, the Supreme Court invalidated a ruling last week by the 7th Circuit Court denying class-action certification in a case called Riffey v. Rauner. The case involved nonunion state-subsidized Illinois home healthcare workers seeking to be repaid the funds that for years they were forced to give to the union that ostensibly represented them.

The justices in effect told the lower court to do it again in light of their ruling last week in the case Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. Janus found that coerced dues from nonunion public-sector workers were unconstitutional.

[SgtHooper]

I pray, but I doubt it. Just try to get the public employees away from guaranteed income and HUGH pensions forever!!

[GonzoII]

Bump!

[Lurker]

“Wonder what they’ll cut first. Pension payments?“

Not here in IL short of a Chapter 9 Bankruptcy filing. It’s right there in our State Constitution.

L

[SunkenCiv]

in light of... Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. Janus found that coerced dues from nonunion public-sector workers were unconstitutional.

Illegally forcing non-unionized workers into a union, solely for the benefit to the union, which then kicked back campaign contributions, is a Demagogic Party SOP. Thanks GonzoII.

[2harddrive]

THANK YOU SUPREMES!!

[Republican Wildcat]

My goodness...this term for the Court was one of the best ever.

[Kickass Conservative]

I proudly agree with Democrat POTUS FDR on one issue, Public Service Unions should not be allowed to exist.

[tbw2]

I want to see the people forced into unionization suing, like the caregivers illegally “Unionized” per a sham vote and then had part of their Medicaid payments garnished for union dues.

[KingNo155]

It is Going to force the Unions to open their books, can’t wait !!

[Red Badger]

Look out for more ‘WINNING!’ in FUTURE Courts!............................

[Svartalfiar]

That ruling may have been specific only to public sector unions, but it doesn’t mean the same legal reasoning wouldn’t apply to non-public sector unions. The court probably just needs to get another case in front of it with a different situation in order to extend the ruling.

Actually, it would. Public and private unions are in a different situation - one of them bargains with the employer who pays the bills, the other bargains with overpaid lawyers who are probably in their own union, and the payer (taxpayers) aren't represented against the union. A private employer has the power to choose to make union membership a condition of employment. The public sector doesn't have that power.