Supreme Court should rule against 'fair share'

Ajustar Comentario Impresión

"There are things you can do to streamline the process for those who want to be part of a union", Cilento said.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday heard arguments in Janus vs. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 31, 16-1466.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., along with Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito Jr., focused on the idea that requiring the fees forces employees who disagree with the union to subsidize its activities. CEI released a report January 24 arguing that unions should choose to form as member-only groups to avoid the free-rider problem.

The American Civil Liberties Union is on the unions' side against an individual's free speech claims.

"We're out here to let "big money" know that we're not going to sit back and let them dictate to us and do whatever they want", he said.

Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano said the Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court case could break the backs of public sector unions and cut off funds to Democratic candidates.

Liberal Justice Elana Kagan stressed how disruptive a ruling against the unions would be, leading to thousands of labor contracts being renegotiated and striking down laws in more than 20 states.

The case, Janus v. AFSCME, pits Mark Janus, an IL state child support specialist, who argues that forcing him to pay union dues for collective bargaining violates his First Amendment rights, against the union that represents him. Gorsuch joined the court in April and has yet to weigh in on union fees.

Bob Bruno: Mark Janus has argued that any payment that he's required to make for any services that the union provides is essentially a form of political speech, which is prohibited under the First Amendment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit ruled against Janus. These so-called fair share fees cover the costs of collective bargaining and grievance procedures to deal with workplace complaints. He also got the attorney to admit that unions would have less political influence if they could no longer collect mandatory dues from dissenting employees. Lawyers for the United States argue that issues like merit pay, state employee tenure and the size of the workforce relate to the proper structure and operation of government.

"We will not allow any court case, any legislation, or any propaganda campaign take away our unions".

Lee also said the case could muffle the voices of teachers nationwide. "When working people are able to join strong unions, they have the strength in numbers they need to fight for the freedoms they deserve, like access to quality health care, retirement security and time off work to care for a loved one".

Justice Anthony Kennedy prodded Franklin on the objective of the state's interest in negotiating with a single partner.

We're learning more about them here in the Ozarks.

Taxpayer advocates would likely oppose bills that would shield contact information or give union members release time from work, said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

Bruno:What's at stake, quite frankly, is the capacity of public sector unions all over the country to protect and represent their members and to bargain on their behalf. He said he worked as a part-time UPS driver while teaching, because that job was unionized so the benefits were better.

Labor unions that are members-only aren't obligated to represent nonmembers. "It's not that I'm anti-union".

Pamela Rall-Johnston, Assistant District Leader for 32BJ SEIU, called the lawsuit an "attack on working-class people and [their] lifestyle".