If Taft-Harley Act of 1947 is appealed, this problem would not exist. Why should non-union member free load off of union bargaining?
3
There should be a founded suspicion of Garland as Obama's nominee. Obama has not been a champion of unions, especially teachers' unions. His appointment of Arne Duncan and his buddy Emanuel, who are both are anti-union, shows that it is not just his championing of the atrocious TPP trade deal, but other things that reveal Obama is quietly pro-Wall Street, We do not need another Democrat like him.
1
Never thought I'd be the type of person celebrating the death of another.
Thank you, Scalia, for dying before you totally gutted the freedoms the Constitution offers.
And kaboom, suddenly the little guy isn't jerked around by the Scalia Court.
Roberts can be proud of his anti-Constituion Court.
It's had it's run.
But its OVER!
And now, its time for some humanity to reach the highest court in the land.
Thank you, Scalia, for dying before you totally gutted the freedoms the Constitution offers.
And kaboom, suddenly the little guy isn't jerked around by the Scalia Court.
Roberts can be proud of his anti-Constituion Court.
It's had it's run.
But its OVER!
And now, its time for some humanity to reach the highest court in the land.
3
you don't want to pay dues to the union? FINE. you don't get the raise or benefit they fought for. Maybe these shops should have two pay scales/benefit packages, union and nonunion and let's see what happens. Each nonunion employee can negotiate their own deal, or take what the company offers.
4
"Forcing a member exclusively to deal through and to pay for is not fair."
Hark S B Lewis-
In the 1978 Tucson Teacher's strike those who had paid into the union for years every month;
and made the horrendously-dispiriting and financially-risky (losing our job) decision to go out on strike;
with the result of winning a majorly-needed increased salary and smaller classes benefiting our pupils education;
while getting no more than all those lily-livered others (including the football coaches who crossed the line);
who never paid in dues nor heart-wrenching risk;
you think that is fair?
Mary Ellen Lewis
in Tucson
Hark S B Lewis-
In the 1978 Tucson Teacher's strike those who had paid into the union for years every month;
and made the horrendously-dispiriting and financially-risky (losing our job) decision to go out on strike;
with the result of winning a majorly-needed increased salary and smaller classes benefiting our pupils education;
while getting no more than all those lily-livered others (including the football coaches who crossed the line);
who never paid in dues nor heart-wrenching risk;
you think that is fair?
Mary Ellen Lewis
in Tucson
3
In this article:"the sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia last month has blocked the power of the court’s four remaining conservatives to move the law to the right."
So then, perhaps Obama's not filling Justice Antonin Scalia's vacancy right now could be a good thing?
So then, perhaps Obama's not filling Justice Antonin Scalia's vacancy right now could be a good thing?
2
Sadly, unions control too many state capitols. Unfunded benefits will now close schools in Illinois. Unions are so often corrupt. If they had motivated against Sheldon Silver, he would not have lasted. But they made common cause.
Forcing a member exclusively to deal through and to pay for is not fair. SCOTUS is meant to be conservative, not rogue liberal. The Federalist called for election of senior government through proxy, not by direct ballot. The mob was feared. Properly was required. We were conservative. And we permitted and encouraged slavery.
Slavery is almost gone. We still have rogue cops.
Fiscal conservatives can be civil libertarians. That makes sense.
SCOTUS cannot function with 8. The GOP is simply weak and with out enlightened leadership.
The nation is troubled. The people are troubled.
I favor the candidate with the least support.
He will not seek mob appeal.
He is a modest man.
John Kasich.
Forcing a member exclusively to deal through and to pay for is not fair. SCOTUS is meant to be conservative, not rogue liberal. The Federalist called for election of senior government through proxy, not by direct ballot. The mob was feared. Properly was required. We were conservative. And we permitted and encouraged slavery.
Slavery is almost gone. We still have rogue cops.
Fiscal conservatives can be civil libertarians. That makes sense.
SCOTUS cannot function with 8. The GOP is simply weak and with out enlightened leadership.
The nation is troubled. The people are troubled.
I favor the candidate with the least support.
He will not seek mob appeal.
He is a modest man.
John Kasich.
Union fees look like a flat tax to me. That's why I'm not sure if required fees are great for all employees involved. Do each employee really get to have a say in the union lobbying interests? America is such an individualistic country, and I think that's why collective bargaining isn't working efficiently.
The Supreme Court is now disfunctional due to the irresponsibility of the Republican congress. Shame on them.
2
This is pretty simple, don't want to pay dues don't get benefits negotiated by the union.. That mean no pay raises. I worked for the the Federal Government for 40 yrs.. Non members were not required to pay dues if they chose not to be a member.. And they got all the raises and benefits the union negotiated, that's unfair. Plus the union had to represent them when they were in trouble.. That's unfair. These people are just cheap for the union dues.. That's all.. They would swear there was no benefit to them.. That going back to making $ 2.51 and hour.. When I retired the salary was somewhere around $ 22.00 an hour..! I remember writing Congress for 2 cent raises.. Like they would have given us anymore .. The organized union got us the pay raises.. Thank You.. Non members should not be required to be represented by a union. And should not receive any benefits..
5
The Republican Senators and their enablers, er, major sources of income, just got hung by their own petard. Clearly the Koch Bros and other employers of unionized workers want to kneecap the unions. It won't happen as a result of this tie. Gee, it is often said that Americans don't ties in sports. For many union members, this tie is the best news ever.
The things that has always bothered me about my understanding of union supporting laws is that they require an employer to only hire employees bound by the terms of the labor agreement of the union. I would have no concern is a company were always able to hire non-union labor under individual agreements to do the same jobs. One impact of collective bargaining seems to be above market wages.
There are many who are skeptical of the details and circumstances surrounding the demise of Scalia and hour timely his death was and fortuitous for certain powers that be. The fact that the family and other forces kept an autopsy from proving anything less is questionable at best.
@BL777,
I am trying to understand your comment. Are you suggesting that the Scalia family wonders and worries that he was murdered? And if he was not murdered, that they are uncomfortable (or unwilling) to accept natural causes as the reason for his death?
3-30-16@2:37 pm
I am trying to understand your comment. Are you suggesting that the Scalia family wonders and worries that he was murdered? And if he was not murdered, that they are uncomfortable (or unwilling) to accept natural causes as the reason for his death?
3-30-16@2:37 pm
The Supreme Court replacement process is broken when a Constitutional appointment process by the president with timely consent is obstructed by partisan gamesmanship.
But sadly, so is the rest of our elected government:
A House gerrymandered beyond rhyme or reason in the name of political advantage rather than democratic representation.
A Senate that creates its Rules to require more than a majority vote to even bring an issue up for an up or down vote.
An Executive process that is obstructed from getting anything done through a Congress that refuses to vote on his proposals or his appointments, even when presented in accordance with the Constitutional process.
A system that defines money as super speech and corporations as people for legal and political purposes.
Is this what our Preamble says our government is supposed to be doing?
I thought it said it was to create a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, promote the general Welfare and secure the Blessings of liberty on our posterity.
Are our elected representatives doing any of that stuff? No!
Why not?
1. Because at least one political party refuses to do its job in Congress as long as the twice elected President is President.
2. The Supreme Court is broken by intent, not by circumstance, by that same said party.
3. The Executive is hogtied and can do nothing through Congress because of that party.
Any party that does this is Un-American. It is the problem, not the solution.
But sadly, so is the rest of our elected government:
A House gerrymandered beyond rhyme or reason in the name of political advantage rather than democratic representation.
A Senate that creates its Rules to require more than a majority vote to even bring an issue up for an up or down vote.
An Executive process that is obstructed from getting anything done through a Congress that refuses to vote on his proposals or his appointments, even when presented in accordance with the Constitutional process.
A system that defines money as super speech and corporations as people for legal and political purposes.
Is this what our Preamble says our government is supposed to be doing?
I thought it said it was to create a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, promote the general Welfare and secure the Blessings of liberty on our posterity.
Are our elected representatives doing any of that stuff? No!
Why not?
1. Because at least one political party refuses to do its job in Congress as long as the twice elected President is President.
2. The Supreme Court is broken by intent, not by circumstance, by that same said party.
3. The Executive is hogtied and can do nothing through Congress because of that party.
Any party that does this is Un-American. It is the problem, not the solution.
3
"...thousands of public servants around the nation must still financially assist a government union that they disagree with,” said Trey Kovacs"
If they disagree so strongly with the raises and benefits that are a direct result of Union bargaining efforts, they should forego all raises and benefits.
Please remember that it was the Unions that brought us the weekend, forty hour workweeks, vacations, holidays and many job safety laws.
The erosion of Union power coincides with Reagan's firing of the air traffic controllers and stagnant wages for everybody in the middle class down. With strong Unions, even non-union workers make more and receive more benefits due to competition for qualified workers.
If they disagree so strongly with the raises and benefits that are a direct result of Union bargaining efforts, they should forego all raises and benefits.
Please remember that it was the Unions that brought us the weekend, forty hour workweeks, vacations, holidays and many job safety laws.
The erosion of Union power coincides with Reagan's firing of the air traffic controllers and stagnant wages for everybody in the middle class down. With strong Unions, even non-union workers make more and receive more benefits due to competition for qualified workers.
4
Amazing how the disparition of one individual can benefit democracy...
1
The supreme court has not handed out justice. I live in a county that is all most totally republican voters. The teachers, bus drivers, teacher assistance, janitors, cooks... The whole of all workers in the education department will now be forced to joint the "teachers union". A union that has historically been very prejudice to everyone except the teachers. When the teachers got a 3% raise, the aids got 1%. So, these people will now pay for union representation they don't get and will have to take to court to get out of. Only how much lawyer can a bus driver pay for compared to the teachers union? Shame on the Supreme court for forcing these Republicans to contribute to the Democrat Party and pay a union that refuses to represent them properly.
1
So let me get this straight. We now have to pay membership fees for unions we don't even want to join.
And this is somehow seen as a good thing.
How repulsive.
And this is somehow seen as a good thing.
How repulsive.
1
I am going to start mowing people's lawns, even if they don't want me to, and then send them the bill. If the unions can do it, why not me?
Would it be too complicated to create separate payroll and benefit packages for union and non-union workers?
Okay, teachers and other workers are now people.
Next, let's stop treating corporations as people.
Next, let's stop treating corporations as people.
I applaud teachers who say "NO" to unions. I want a system where teachers are rewarded for the quality of their teaching as opposed to the lobbying efforts of unions which are bankrupting our society with unfunded pensions. This is not a wealthy conservative pov. I am a single mother and raised three boys in the public school system and saw far too many tenured teachers who were frankly bad teachers and there was nothing the administration could do to get to of them because of union paradigms. Meanwhile there are many amazing teachers who struggle to find work. I don't have a union protecting me. My success (or failure) depends solely on my skills and results. Like millions of other people in this country.
5
Absolutely; if the system with the union workers was totally based on merit and quality of work, many of the desk sitters and overpaid employees would have to settle for what their work is really worth. The same goes for the greedy executives. Top to bottom the system is corrupt. But expect many politicians to back union leaders no matter what the effect is on the larger society.
I would ask if your son has had any good teachers? Probably quite a few. Those good tea v hers have worked hard on your children's behalf and deserve the security provided by tenure and a decent pension.
You live in a no tenure state as I recall. It was eliminated in 1997. All current and new teachers will be employed on renewable two-year contracts. at the time. So really you have no point in your argument.
1
The first ammendment guarantees the right to say anything in NY Times comments, regardless of its truth. I'm reading boldfaceday lies here. Public employees cannot be forced to pay for union political activities. That's current law. They can only be forced to pay for costs of negotiating and enforcing contracts. Taxpayers, on the other hand, are forced to pay the fees of the professional negotiators districts hire to fight the unions at contract time. Maybe some taxpaying teacher should go to the Supreme Court to protest that!
8
The First Amendment does not guarantee "the right to say anything in NY Times comments." If one has been properly educated by teachers chosen on merit, rather than on their ability to stay on good terms with the union, you would know that.
Assuming that non-union teachers only "pay for costs of negotiating and enforcing contracts" (i.e., assuming that the unions would never pad those expenses to suck more money out of non-union members), how about giving non-union members the opportunity to negotiate their own contracts and freeing them from union payments? Probably the Boards of Education would simply match the union contract terms (or, in the case of really good teachers, exceed those terms, while in the case of really bad teachers -- well, the really bad teachers would join the union) and the non-union members would be perfectly happy.
Assuming that non-union teachers only "pay for costs of negotiating and enforcing contracts" (i.e., assuming that the unions would never pad those expenses to suck more money out of non-union members), how about giving non-union members the opportunity to negotiate their own contracts and freeing them from union payments? Probably the Boards of Education would simply match the union contract terms (or, in the case of really good teachers, exceed those terms, while in the case of really bad teachers -- well, the really bad teachers would join the union) and the non-union members would be perfectly happy.
1
This is a crazy outcome given that unions have lost their raisin d'être and through their own excesses are the cause of the downfall of Detroit, automobile manufacturing in the United States, and a host of other industries, and now quality public service.. The combative nature of unions defending the lowest common denominator of rank and file employee and service has given rise to a culture of entitlement which is shameful. This case should be reheard when there is a full court, and in the meantime left as a tie - which is no decision at all. There is nothing to celebrate here.
5
A big win, but why wasn't it 8-0? The next challenge is getting Citizens United overturned. Let's hope that Scalia's replacement does what is right for America.
7
The Left is always big on suppressing speech it doesn't like for fear "bad" ideas will be thought. If any rational voter ever believed money could buy elections, the Jeb Bush campaign convinced them otherwise.
Everyone, union member or not, benefits from negotiations between employer and the respective union. Therefore, in a land of toxic capitalism like the US, in which workers' rights are frequently violated, unions play a vital role in counter-balancing the power of profit driven and greedy enterprises. The government benefits through taxation for expenditures on the public good and a healthier economy through greater purchasing power by union members and the general public, which in turn creates more jobs instead of letting companies hide their profits off-shore. .
5
Hey, if greater purchasing power is the Holy Grail, why don't we just double everyone's salaries?
Unions arose out of the corporate executives who wanted more and more without sharing a reasonable profit with the workers. But no one should be forced to join a union or other organization in order to work a job. Unions have also been on the forefront of opposing non-union work projects that they regard as a threat to their members, in many cases unreasonably, and with some districts the unions have a stranglehold on trades. Stories centered around obscene contracts by unions strapping the taxpayers with greater and greater wages, benefits and pensions, far out of line with the private sector jobs. With all the people out of work, the unions should not be guaranteeing excessive wage jobs while others could be employed providing for themselves and their families.
5
A victory for union bosses and venal politicians a loss for workers, freedom and individual rights.
5
Why anyone believes fair share is unfair is lost on me. Without it non-union workers enjoy huge protections and benefits FOR FREE.
Then again we have southern and western states that are Right to Work For Less rules.
Then again we have southern and western states that are Right to Work For Less rules.
4
Or the "Right to Work for More," as the case may be.
The wealthy usurpers of justice will continue to pour millions of dollars into coffers of the Inti-Union movement. Already money is flowing from the Koch
brothers to derail President Oboma's efforts to replace Justice Scalia. It makes me sick to my stomach.
brothers to derail President Oboma's efforts to replace Justice Scalia. It makes me sick to my stomach.
4
Mary Kay Henry's comment that "we know the wealthy extremists who pushed this case" illustrates the union's lies they perpetuate.
These were teachers, hardly wealthy extremists, who are weary of paying for the wealthy union leaders to line their pockets and purses almost entirely for their own agenda.
These were teachers, hardly wealthy extremists, who are weary of paying for the wealthy union leaders to line their pockets and purses almost entirely for their own agenda.
5
It's not a lie, it's right in the article. A simple google search would have enlightened you to the fact that the Center for Individual Rights is a right wing pro-bono law group. Do another search and you'll find that the CEAI was involved too. That's 2 groups with lot's of money behind these teachers. Oh, and do another search and you'll find interviews with Ms. Friedrichs where she doesn't say anything about the first amendment, it's all about the union going against her christian beliefs.
On top of that, there's this:
"At each stage in the legal process, CIR attorneys asked the courts to rule against their own clients, with the apparent interest of moving the case up to the Supreme Court as quickly as possible."
And if you do a little more research you'll find that it was Justice Alito that opened this can of worms, even though there was already precedent. If that's not an activist judge then I don't know what is.
But keep living in your world of us vs. the liberals, that's exactly where the greedy, profit driven 1% of this country want you to live.
On top of that, there's this:
"At each stage in the legal process, CIR attorneys asked the courts to rule against their own clients, with the apparent interest of moving the case up to the Supreme Court as quickly as possible."
And if you do a little more research you'll find that it was Justice Alito that opened this can of worms, even though there was already precedent. If that's not an activist judge then I don't know what is.
But keep living in your world of us vs. the liberals, that's exactly where the greedy, profit driven 1% of this country want you to live.
"Terence J. Pell, the group’s president, said he was disappointed with Tuesday’s tie vote."
If the union representation is so bad, Mr Pell's group should not bemoan a tie vote in the Supreme Court to force their will on others in their union. They have union elections that they should try convincing a majority of their peers, not a majority of judges, to change the way their union operates.
If the union representation is so bad, Mr Pell's group should not bemoan a tie vote in the Supreme Court to force their will on others in their union. They have union elections that they should try convincing a majority of their peers, not a majority of judges, to change the way their union operates.
4
Hmmmmm: Scalia gone, unions win. Sounds like a perfect setup to me.
One man dying means that tens of millions keep their basic rights. While the outcome is good, it should never be that way in the first place. This area of law and policy had been settled for decades.
1
I see. When a poor single mother who is eligible for food stamps, family assistance, and Medicaid, actually obtains these services, that is called free loading (to say nothing of the low wages that don't meet the basic needs of working Americans and leave workers with no option but to seek these services). But if someone wants for free the benefits obtained by co-workers who do contribute dues, (to say nothing of being actively involved), that is called "freedom". How do they hold these views with a straight face?
20
The freeloader is getting money from mostly unwilling taxpayers; the union is getting money from mostly unwilling non-union members. Pretty much the same.
If the union is so worried about non-members getting union benefits, it would be easy to make the union contract cover only members of the union; the non-union members would be free to join the union and receive the benefits of the union contract or not join the union and negotiate their own contract. But that would quickly result in all the good teachers leaving the union and all the bad teachers joining the union, which, depending on the quality of the teachers, could result in the demise or enhancement of the union.
If the union is so worried about non-members getting union benefits, it would be easy to make the union contract cover only members of the union; the non-union members would be free to join the union and receive the benefits of the union contract or not join the union and negotiate their own contract. But that would quickly result in all the good teachers leaving the union and all the bad teachers joining the union, which, depending on the quality of the teachers, could result in the demise or enhancement of the union.
2
Could this ruling be another reason not to have an odd number of jurists on the Supreme Court? I keep thinking back to Citizen's United - would that there would have only been 8 jurists on the court that day.
1
The fees are meant to pay for some of the costs of collective bargaining, including “THE COST OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES"
Where else do Americans pay for services that they are not affiliated with?
Church? Hotels? Airports? Private clubs? Auto Insurance? Health Insurance?
If you join the union then perhaps you should pay retroactive fees.....PERHAPS?
Where else do Americans pay for services that they are not affiliated with?
Church? Hotels? Airports? Private clubs? Auto Insurance? Health Insurance?
If you join the union then perhaps you should pay retroactive fees.....PERHAPS?
1
I am giddy with excitement over how the GOP's scheming is blowing up in their face, from Trump to the Supreme Court. Even with a majority in the House and Senate, they are effete and useless.
3
This is a "victory" only if your starting point is the right wing Republican view of the economy is that of the post Civil War sharecropper economy. This decision merely affirms the 40 year precedent set by the Supreme Court. The four right wing Republican politicians wanted to reverse and strike down that precedent and the law enacted by duly elected legislators.
The supreme court in Lochner v New York struck down a law passed by the New York legislature limited the hours bakers worked to 10 hours per day and 60 hours per week. In dissent Mr. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously said: "The Fourteenth Amendment does not enact the social statics of Mr. Herbert Spencer." The Roberts Court disagrees with Holmes and would enact its own economic construct.
The supreme court in Lochner v New York struck down a law passed by the New York legislature limited the hours bakers worked to 10 hours per day and 60 hours per week. In dissent Mr. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously said: "The Fourteenth Amendment does not enact the social statics of Mr. Herbert Spencer." The Roberts Court disagrees with Holmes and would enact its own economic construct.
Although it took forever and a day, no longer can the free-loaders benefit from the efforts of unions. I was hired in 1974 by a federal agency; it was clear that every staff member should have paid union dues, but that was not the case.
Gosh, it only took 40+ years to bring about a change in my case.
Gosh, it only took 40+ years to bring about a change in my case.
4
It is unconceivable that any organization can force individuals to pay fees. Is ours a society a mafia?
It is sad to see judges without the idea of individual liberty.
It is sad to see judges without the idea of individual liberty.
5
Money is not speech. Now what we need is the appointment of a new Supreme Court justice to overturn Citizens United and affirm the aforementioned common sense concept and stop... ok, make that reduce, the bribery of the oligarchs who are destroying the poor and the middle class.
3
Too much free speech is anathema to the Left. Never mind about what the Jeb Bush campaign showed about how little money can influence voters.
1
The Democratic justices vote Democratic and the Republican Justices vote Republican. It is not law -- just unelected politicians with lifetime tenure unanswerable to anyone.
1
Except the Republican appointed judges sometimes break ranks, based on their interpretation of the law -- and even in major cases (e.g., Obamacare owes its existence to Chief Justice Roberts). That doesn't happen so often with the Democrat appointees.
2
The Republicans might want to look up the definition of Karma.
2
Thank you GOP. I COULDN'T BE HAPPIER. It's nice when karma hits.
3
Supporter of enforced union fees, please answer this question: Why do I have to be represented or protected by union?
4
All teachers benefit when the Union negotiates increased salaries, lower teacher-child ratios, safer working conditions, and so on, so all teachers should pay the fees.
1
Joining the Carpenter Union was the best thing i ever did. I put in my 35 years, 27 with the same contractor ( rare in the construction business) and now i'm reaping the benefit of a pension. Thank you Local 558!
6
Yay! One Conservative Justice dead! Let's hope another one dies soon! Yay! All liberal agendas are now coming to fruit! Yay! Let's look forward to the death of the Conservative Justices! Yay! It's the only way!
The physical elimination of the opposition is the usual way the Left comes to power.... Thanks for you comment!
1
Easter has passed, and Antonin Scalia has not risen. Whatever will terminally backward-thinking people do?
2
Why doesn't anybody ever mention pro athletes' unions? They all belong to a union, right?
2
When more middle class and working class people were represented by unions they earned better salaries, which benefited the entire nation. The weakening of the union system has damaged our country. If management complains that the unions are getting much more than they should, it is management's fault for not negotiating harder.
2
The reason for low wages in the US is the Democrat (as well as many Republicans) defended importation of millions of illegals in order to drive down wages. If there were no unions and no illegals, wages would be higher because the demand for labor would exceed the supply. Because of the illegals, the supply of labor exceeds the demand for labor and only via government fiat, rather than economic sense, can a working class person (other than a truly outstanding worker) get a living wage.
1
Didn't Ms Friedrichs know that she would have to pay compulsory union dues when she interviewed for a teacher's position with the State of California? If she didn't like that arrangement, she should have refused the job offer.
Elsewhere, the GOP should rethink their strategy toward Merrick Garland. He might have helped them here. He's not all that left, you know.
Elsewhere, the GOP should rethink their strategy toward Merrick Garland. He might have helped them here. He's not all that left, you know.
1
One tremendous value of a union contract that might not have been mentioned is its transparency and, consequently, its power to ensure equal pay for men and women doing the same job. Whim and favoritism are bad for workplace morale. Discrimination based on gender or race or religion are all arduous to prove. A union contract where job categories are defined and pay is determined by those categories - and which everyone can read - is the strongest instrument I know of for preventing this discrimination from the start.
2
Nothing wrong with clear contracts, which prospective employees could sign or not sign as they wish. The problem is the union, not the contract.
1
Why do we use the terms conservative and liberal in regard to the Supreme Court? We have one group of judges who respect previous decisions and another group of judges that support radical changes. The term conservative means slow changes it is wrong term for Supreme Court and politics.
1
Labor must unite to fight the ruling class. A "right to work" state such as Florida is really a "right to be exploited" state. Sure, everyone has the right to work --- for low wages, 25 hours, and no benefits. I'd rather join a union that will fight for my rights. I met three union men with pensions at the pool a few weeks ago. All wanted to vote for Trump who would take out the terrorists and deport the illegals. They had NO IDEA that the GOP they have been voting for all their lives is the part that wants to bust up the unions and destroy the working class. Just look at what Walker did to Wisconsin.....he was so hated he had to drop out of the election early. They had 17 candidates. None of them were great....but the absolute worst 2 -- Trump and Cruz -- are winning. Trump wants to start world war 3. Bully other countries into doing what he wants by threatening to use nuclear weapons. Cruz would abolish the IRS and starve the government of money that it needs to take care of those who can't care for themselves, the children, the elderly, the sick.
2
Of course, YOU could take care of your children, elderly and sick -- if it's not too much of a bother.
Makes me just smile about how our Democratic Senators left the State of Wisconsin when Governor Scott Walker bolted into office in 2011 and put the kabosh on public employee unions. The people of Wisconsin protested in snow and blizzards even. We brought our kids and grandkids. So much so Walker, in his ridiculous run for president compared us to ISIS terrorists. I will ever be grateful to these Senators! Some left in these years that followed. Some stayed, and will be still in Madison in 2018 when we all bid the greatest farewell to Scott Walker. Even the devout Republicans have learned their lesson about Walker and his Koch Brother puppetry.
To bide time, our 14 Democratic Senators went to Illionois, to perhaps negotiate or slow down the Walker deal. Needless to say, Walker still got his way. Since then teachers have fled Wisconsin, the great teachers who would have continued to serve longer retired, our public schools and universities have been greatly defunded by Walker and his henchmen ( the real to ISIS like terrorists), the voucher schools are scooping up our taxpayer money like Chessie Cats, and our kids and schools are suffering.
This was quite the time in Wisconsin history. I thank you WI Democratic Senators. Today the Supreme Court decision will maybe put some dignity and respect for teachers back where it should be. Could we see this as an attempt to to slow down teacher demonization? I hope so.
To bide time, our 14 Democratic Senators went to Illionois, to perhaps negotiate or slow down the Walker deal. Needless to say, Walker still got his way. Since then teachers have fled Wisconsin, the great teachers who would have continued to serve longer retired, our public schools and universities have been greatly defunded by Walker and his henchmen ( the real to ISIS like terrorists), the voucher schools are scooping up our taxpayer money like Chessie Cats, and our kids and schools are suffering.
This was quite the time in Wisconsin history. I thank you WI Democratic Senators. Today the Supreme Court decision will maybe put some dignity and respect for teachers back where it should be. Could we see this as an attempt to to slow down teacher demonization? I hope so.
4
Can the President sue the GOP to force them to consider Merrick Garland? They could adopt the same tactics as here and get to SCOTUS in a hurry. After all, what the GOP is doing is plainly unconstitutional. Maybe Kennedy would agree. Can the SC procedurally hold a political party in contempt and fine them for every ay they don't vote on the nomination? It would be just a lot of fun, if nothing else. Calling McConnell as a witness, swearing him in. Oh, well, back to reality.
An important win for unions. Of course, if a Republican wins the White House come November this will be reversed along with a half century of progress on many other issues including gay rights, voting rights and women's reproductive rights. Elections matter. The Supreme Court matters.
2
"It was the starkest illustration yet of how the sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia last month has blocked the power of the court’s four remaining conservatives to move the law to the right."
Or the Liberals to the left. The looking glass has two sides. Keep in mind that the Roberts court has mad several decisions that do not sit well with moderates or conservatives, e.g. the ObamaCare as a tax decision.
On the other hand the Liberal justices can almost always be counted on to vote as a block.
Or the Liberals to the left. The looking glass has two sides. Keep in mind that the Roberts court has mad several decisions that do not sit well with moderates or conservatives, e.g. the ObamaCare as a tax decision.
On the other hand the Liberal justices can almost always be counted on to vote as a block.
3
Two sides to a question -- both considered by the editors? Please, this is the NYT. Only the correct side need be elucidated.
Does anyone else find it odd the adversarial relationship between workers and employers in this country? This seems ingrained in the American psyche when it really shouldn't be. The reality is both sides should be working together to support the common good.
2
Praise the Lord Jesus Christ.
1
The radical liberals on the court have temporarily succeeded In denying freedom of speech to all employees who do not support the activities of unions. It will not prevail and freedom will ultimately win.
3
My grandfather, a WWI vet, worked as an accountant for the coal mines in SW Virginia from the 1920s to the 1950s; he saw the incentive to work diminish under unionized labor, as the coal miners were paid more than the market could bare for their labor. Unions provide an unrealistic wage for labor that it does not truly deserve. I know that for a fact based on relatives, who without HS degrees, work in union labor and make as much, if not more, than people who have college degrees. I do not agree with that and that is why my grandfather said unions will be ruin of America.
3
Yup, that pesky black lung disease must have gotten in the way of enjoying those palatial homes they built off those union wages...
Perhaps most troubling line in this article regards the Center for Individual Rights and is the "strategy" to urge lower courts to rule against them. That level of cynicism is detestable. If the members of this group had any honorable motives or belief in the American justice system, they would have worked their way through the courts as it is intended and respect the result. Instead they chose to finger their nose at our lower courts and go straight to the top. So many Bible verses come to mind, about judgment, reaping what you sow, righteousness. Perhaps these so-called Christians should go back to their Bibles. And read it this time.
2
When a court of justice so clearly splits on partisan political lines, the justice system is broken. Whatever happened to the notion that a true democracy requires impartial adjudication?
4
Well, Mitch, y'all just lost on a tie vote. Your obfuscation and obstruction cost you that one, and it got you Trump. I hope you're happy, not doing your job and all.
The impact of Judge Scalia's passing didn't take long to be manifest at SCOTUS. We couldn't have withstood much more of his brand of conservatism.
An important win for unions. Of course, if a Republican wins the White House come November, this will likely be reversed along with progress regarding gay rights and women's reproductive rights. Elections matter. The Supreme Court matters.
1
>>>>>>
This case will be revisited in a second should the GOP win the election and appoints a young rightwing ideologue and stacks the rest of the Courts with the same. Bet on it.
So think about all that in Nov you Bernie supporters. No No!! Don't worry Hillary's supporters will gladly vote for Bernie if he wins the nomination.
But until then America's workers seem to have obtained a well deserved break from the machine since all the handwringing by the media about the death of the "supposedly great" Scalia.
Seneca appears to be right here with a trifecta when he said about death: "A punishment to some, to some a gift, and to many a favor."
This case will be revisited in a second should the GOP win the election and appoints a young rightwing ideologue and stacks the rest of the Courts with the same. Bet on it.
So think about all that in Nov you Bernie supporters. No No!! Don't worry Hillary's supporters will gladly vote for Bernie if he wins the nomination.
But until then America's workers seem to have obtained a well deserved break from the machine since all the handwringing by the media about the death of the "supposedly great" Scalia.
Seneca appears to be right here with a trifecta when he said about death: "A punishment to some, to some a gift, and to many a favor."
1
With Garland there would be little difference with all these 4 to 4 decisions since he is a left leaning establishment judge. It remains to be seen if he would have voted like Scalia in future votes in a significant way swaying a decision.
1
Leftists will have a majority in the SCOTUS soon enough. They will then use it to destroy what little is left of the free market and individual liberty.
3
What is most distressing is that the judges once appointed adhere to the ideology of their employer i.e. the President. They should be big enough to overcome that handicap and decide cases not on the basis of ideology.
2
What would Rebecca the teacher do if she got a new boss who did not seem to like her for some obscure reason and her new boss began writing bad performance reviews on her classroom work? Where would she turn for support and assistance if she did not have a union to protect her rights of employment?
What was Justice Scalia's (also Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy) definition of an "at-will" employee? Was it not and is it not, that an employer may terminate any employee for good reason, for bad reason, or no reason at all? And, this definition of a right to employment in either the public or private sector is held by five men who have lifetime tenure as Supreme Court justices according to provisions of the Constitution (implemented by the founding fathers to insure the integrity of the Supreme Court as an institution).
What was Justice Scalia's (also Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy) definition of an "at-will" employee? Was it not and is it not, that an employer may terminate any employee for good reason, for bad reason, or no reason at all? And, this definition of a right to employment in either the public or private sector is held by five men who have lifetime tenure as Supreme Court justices according to provisions of the Constitution (implemented by the founding fathers to insure the integrity of the Supreme Court as an institution).
3
I never understood the need for unions...until I needed one. I've become painfully aware of how employees will be neglected, bullied and otherwise abused by inexperienced, reckless, egomaniacal and even disorganized managers, and those who supervise the managers. Additionally, in many union shops (esp in public sector) the management is always changing, so too the attitudes, vision, values, experience and critical intellectual skills of the changing leadership. Without consistent rules, no one knows how to play and management will never be held accountable for anything; employees will always pay for their poor leadership. As a well-known professor in Boston once said "Unions are a sign of bad management." And it's true. Really true and sad.
2
The Supreme Court gave unions a major victory to collect fees under threat
This shows how death of Justice Scalia blocked power of Court to set right
A ruling allowing workers to refuse to pay fees would be the end of campaign
But the deadlock left the doors further open the court is back in strength again
When the case was argued in January Justice Scalia arguments were hostile
His death changed balance of power in the case ,liberal members for a while
If Senate Republicans confirm Judge Garlands replacement liberals may grow
Union were happy by decision but wary of the efforts to make them effective low
Mary Harry said extremists who pushed case donot want worker to make dent
They want to curb voting rights of workers and restrict options for the imm4 igrant
Case was brought by Center for One's rights that followed a strategy out of file
The group asked lower court to reject petition so that in Supreme Court they file
Group's President said he was disappointed to let this tie decision of 4 to stand
A full Court will decide and case will be reheard when new justice raises hand
Under California law employees who choose not to join union pay fair share fee
The fee is meant to be paid as cost of bargaining including cost of lobbying fee
The Unions defending the fees said the First Amendment arguments were ruse
The plaintiffs were trying to reap the benefits without paying their share of dues
This shows how death of Justice Scalia blocked power of Court to set right
A ruling allowing workers to refuse to pay fees would be the end of campaign
But the deadlock left the doors further open the court is back in strength again
When the case was argued in January Justice Scalia arguments were hostile
His death changed balance of power in the case ,liberal members for a while
If Senate Republicans confirm Judge Garlands replacement liberals may grow
Union were happy by decision but wary of the efforts to make them effective low
Mary Harry said extremists who pushed case donot want worker to make dent
They want to curb voting rights of workers and restrict options for the imm4 igrant
Case was brought by Center for One's rights that followed a strategy out of file
The group asked lower court to reject petition so that in Supreme Court they file
Group's President said he was disappointed to let this tie decision of 4 to stand
A full Court will decide and case will be reheard when new justice raises hand
Under California law employees who choose not to join union pay fair share fee
The fee is meant to be paid as cost of bargaining including cost of lobbying fee
The Unions defending the fees said the First Amendment arguments were ruse
The plaintiffs were trying to reap the benefits without paying their share of dues
I jump for joy at the hope for the common man, woman, and child who depend on working fathers. See what the erasure of one mentally deranged sociopathic narcissist from the court can do for the destiny of the good people of America? Plenty. Now have another helping of chili with extra butter on those pancakes Justice Thomas
2
Thank goodness we sent our kids to private Catholic schools so they weren't force-fed this propaganda you lefties always push...Scary!
I have to laugh at myself for reading this paper some days...Always bad news, always putting someone down, always negative...At least there's the Food section.
I have to laugh at myself for reading this paper some days...Always bad news, always putting someone down, always negative...At least there's the Food section.
4
There is a children's story that has the moral if you do not contribute to any of the stepss needed to make a loaf of bread, you do not get to enjoy it. What about a twotiered wage and benefit s hedule - one fordues-paying members; a much lower one for the scofflaws?
2
I have no insight into the pros and cons of the case. What I can say, is that suing on infringement of free speech sure looks ridiculous from a distance. And conservative judges going along, for the sake of the result, doesn't inspire confidence.
3
As I have been saying since Scalia died, President Obama should have made a "Recess Appointment" in February when the Senate was in Recess.
The Justice would have been immediately seated on the Court.
The Senate would have had 1 year to affirm or reject or just let the appointment stand. Warren, Brennan and Stewart were Recess Appointments under Eisenhower. It worked out fine. I don't agree with the WH strategy on this appointment..
The Justice would have been immediately seated on the Court.
The Senate would have had 1 year to affirm or reject or just let the appointment stand. Warren, Brennan and Stewart were Recess Appointments under Eisenhower. It worked out fine. I don't agree with the WH strategy on this appointment..
1
Fewer of us have the benefit of job tenure. If you are really good at the work you do, that makes sense. There are, however, abuses, not only in education , but in prisons, police, ... wherein criminals and featherbedders keep their jobs.
2
Yes, a victory for the unions. Let's hope labor and the middle class score more victories.
3
I'm a member of CTA. This is not, in any way, a victory for the middle class or labor. It's a victory for a political class.
4
Gotcha Mitch! The split court wennt against your fascism!
2
As we wind up the rulings "season" from SCOTUS, we can thank SEN MITCH MCCONNELL (and supporters the KOCH BROS.) for any and all tied rulings. After all, they know best, correct? In fact, they are quietly re-writing the Constitution to their liking through REFUSING TO DO THEIR JOBS by affirming a well-qualified nominee. Justice Scalia's body wasnt even cold before Mitch announced his intent some 3 hours later. What a poor excuse for a US Senator. Mitch, you are incapable and have lost all perspective after sitting in that cushy Senate chair for way too long. You should be ashamed of the farce you are perpetrating on the American people under the guise of "the people should make the choice". As a life-long Republican and your obviously disregarded constituent, I am ashamed and embarrassed by your arrogant, childish and disrespectful lack of regard for the US Constitution, Mitch. Your own mother would be ashamed.
2
Unions create unemployment. In this case, not only do unions want to remove job opportunities from people qualified to fill them, they also want to be paid for work they don't do. The epitome of getting something for nothing, the hallmark of every thief.
If a union rips benefits for its members from an employer, and if that employer can provide jobs to people who choose not to be part of the union, why does the union have any right to any of the cash earned by non-union workers? It doesn't. Only in a "you didn't build that" kind of world does someone who does nothing earn cash because of it. The worker doing the job he's hired to do earns the cash - the union "organizer" (or thug) has no right to that cash, even if it's the same amount of cash that a unionized worker receives. And the employer is actually forbidden by anti-trust law to offer less cash to non-union workers than to unionized workers.
In the end, the employer suffers, as do the non-union workers. All because unions - yet another form of special interest lobbyists - can threaten politicians.
If a union rips benefits for its members from an employer, and if that employer can provide jobs to people who choose not to be part of the union, why does the union have any right to any of the cash earned by non-union workers? It doesn't. Only in a "you didn't build that" kind of world does someone who does nothing earn cash because of it. The worker doing the job he's hired to do earns the cash - the union "organizer" (or thug) has no right to that cash, even if it's the same amount of cash that a unionized worker receives. And the employer is actually forbidden by anti-trust law to offer less cash to non-union workers than to unionized workers.
In the end, the employer suffers, as do the non-union workers. All because unions - yet another form of special interest lobbyists - can threaten politicians.
5
Love it! Thank you Mitch McConnell! Keep the the victories coming!
1
This is not a Victory. It is avoiding a loss. The Victory was obtained back in the day when the government was willing to say "NO" to the the rich and powerful.
2
I live in a right to work state and you have no negotiating power with your employer here and the living expenses are almost as high as California's living expenses. No unions means lower wages and nonexistent benefits. This teacher wants the benefits of her other peers but does not want to pay for it. Let me give you an example here. A grocery worker in California makes $21 an hour and yes they are taxed more and they have to pay $45 a month for union dues. It takes 5 years to get to that wage. A grocery worker here in Nevada's top wage now is $12 an hour and it also takes 5 years or more because it based on the discretion of the employer as well. Yes we are taxed less and yes we do not pay union dues but you do the math. As far as Rebecca is concerned she is just a free loader. Right to work to me is right to fire for no reason and yes employers are firing for no reason especially if you have served the company moved your way up and get replaced by another person because he can be paid the minimum wage and that is why I want the minimum wage needs to increase to. For all the people that think well they should just go to school well my nephew did and he became an engineer and earns $15 an hour after 4 years of schooling and has the degree but now has to pay his school debt. He is earning what I did 15 years ago. The system is rigged big time!!!
2
A refreshing fact is that trade union members are going to smile at work but in the privacy of an election poll booth many will caste their vote in support of the second amendment.
in California teahers who don't want to support the union pay much less each paycheck than do union members. They pay only their share of the costs to support the bargaining committee and the legal teams that settle disputes with administrators. I know because I was one of these teachers for years. I didn't like their politics so I didn't want my money to go to their political action committee. Funny---every time we got a new contract and a raise I never complained or tried to sue.
but I'm paying the team that's negotiating AGAINST me.
1
I do not see anything wrong in the Unions demanding non-members to pay a certain fee. I agree that it is an individual's right to be part of an union or not. But when the Labor Union is fighting for the collective cause of all the employees, an individual employee cannot say, "you fight for me, I will not lend you any help, but I will come to reap the benefits of our labor". You cannot have the cake and eat it too.
1
It isn't the collective bargaining part I didn't want to pay for, it's the politcking, I wanted ( and tried to) pay partial dues -- what would pay for collective bargaining but not for supporting political candidates or issues
2
So because I live where the person who brought this case taught, you deserve to know the WHOLE story. First this whole case has been funded by conservative anti public school and union groups. Second the teacher who started it all was a member of her association AKA union but got mad when the bargaining team decided to not ask the district if they could take a big pay cut to prevent teachers being let go during the 6 years that CA and other states were letting teachers go. Point to note is that her district was already one of the lower paid in Orange County. So because the team decided not to bargain for that ( by vote of membership) she wanted to quit.
We like to think that we are a nation of laws and not of men. But then think about how one man, through arrogance and vanity, hurt the lives of millions of his fellow citizens. The question isn't just conservative or liberal - the question is how to remake our country to best serve the people, i.e. how best to redistribute power.
As the lord Jesus Christ says, everything happens for a reason.
1
As a retired public employee and union activist, I believe the Court's "decision" was appropriate. We had a number of employees who refused to formally join the union, but were required to pay dues anyway. They benefited from the collective bargaining, and frequently sought assistance on grievances they had against their managers. A number of them decided to join the local when they were informed that their grievances could not be resolved unless they became legitimate members. It worked!
2
I'm sorry that this is an area that the Supreme Court has a voice in. Does the Supreme Court get to weigh in on compensation agreements in corporations? How about in compensation and staffing credential agreements in Charter Schools? The federal department of education no longer can set educational guidelines for the nation, but the Supreme Court gets to decide the compensation and work lives guidelines for all public workers? The hypocrisy of the corporate robber barons no knows bounds. Better hope Trump the Simplistic-Bombastic doesn't actually get elected. He'd have teachers and other public employees working for the 1950s minimum wage.
1
One would rejoice with this decision if one believed that teacher unions were vital to the mission of our education system; in fact if they were essential and instrumental to furthering the mission.
The evidence, however, is not just that they don't contribute to the mission but that they are impeding success of the nation's students. Above all the teacher unions care about its members: their salaries, pensions, benefits, and work rules; education and cost be damned.
The evidence, however, is not just that they don't contribute to the mission but that they are impeding success of the nation's students. Above all the teacher unions care about its members: their salaries, pensions, benefits, and work rules; education and cost be damned.
2
Biden's 1992 speech is the gift that keeps on giving. Democrats obviously haven't listened to it, and I could not find a transcript on line. But I watched it on video here:
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4581759/sen-joe-bide...
As it relates to the issue of a court divided four to four should the President in an election year decide not to propose a nominee or the Senate (controlled at the time by Democrats) not hold hearings on a nominee until after the election, here's what Biden said:
“Others may fret that this approach would leave the court with only eight members for some time. But as I see it, Mr. President, the cost of such a result, the need to re-argue three or four cases that will divide the justices four to four, are quite minor compared to the cost the nominee, the President, the Senate and the nation would have to pay for what would assuredly be a bitter fight, no matter how good a person is nominated by the President if that nomination is to take place in the next several weeks.”
The Biden Rule strikes again.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4581759/sen-joe-bide...
As it relates to the issue of a court divided four to four should the President in an election year decide not to propose a nominee or the Senate (controlled at the time by Democrats) not hold hearings on a nominee until after the election, here's what Biden said:
“Others may fret that this approach would leave the court with only eight members for some time. But as I see it, Mr. President, the cost of such a result, the need to re-argue three or four cases that will divide the justices four to four, are quite minor compared to the cost the nominee, the President, the Senate and the nation would have to pay for what would assuredly be a bitter fight, no matter how good a person is nominated by the President if that nomination is to take place in the next several weeks.”
The Biden Rule strikes again.
1
Not having read all the prior comments, I have no idea whether anyone has raised a question that isn't often addressed in the 'fair share' debate: the fees paid by non-union members include a substantial amount for what's called 'representation,' as contrasted to collective bargaining or political activity in which unions engage. That role requires a union to advocate for and represent any employee who has a contract issue with the employer; it's a costly and time-consuming task for both volunteer grievance committees and for legal staff, extening to non-members services some, at times, require. So how is it that this role is so frequently left aside in the discussion when it is so funamentally important to all employees in a unionize workforce?
2
Ever since 2008 Republicans in the House have been obstructive but they've also failed to make decisions that further their own prospects.
They nurtured Ted Cruz who was unpopular, shut down the government despite that the majority of Americans didn't want them to and attacked Obama instead of governing. The list of how they did that is a mile long.
Their actions have hurt American society tremendously but also themselves. They have cultivated inequality, hatred and prejudice, creating the perfect climate for a Donald Trump—who the entire world despises. Everybody except themselves sees that they are reaping the seeds they’ve sown.
Their unpopularity is at an all-time low. The establishment has two sociopath candidates and loathes them both and is seriously contemplating disenfranchising its own voters to prevent Trump from getting the nomination. What a ridiculous state of affairs. I have a friend whose family has voted GOP for generations. She can't stand what they’ve morphed into. She’s going to vote Democrat, even if the nominee is Bernie Sanders.
The GOP is the best example I’ve ever seen of having rope and hanging yourself. Except that they weren’t given the rope, they stole it. And now the Senate is refusing to fulfill its constitutional duties and vote on Merrick Garland.
As to be expected, it’s hurting America, but it’s also hurting them. They didn’t think about how decisions might actually go against them without the ninth Justice. They never think.
They nurtured Ted Cruz who was unpopular, shut down the government despite that the majority of Americans didn't want them to and attacked Obama instead of governing. The list of how they did that is a mile long.
Their actions have hurt American society tremendously but also themselves. They have cultivated inequality, hatred and prejudice, creating the perfect climate for a Donald Trump—who the entire world despises. Everybody except themselves sees that they are reaping the seeds they’ve sown.
Their unpopularity is at an all-time low. The establishment has two sociopath candidates and loathes them both and is seriously contemplating disenfranchising its own voters to prevent Trump from getting the nomination. What a ridiculous state of affairs. I have a friend whose family has voted GOP for generations. She can't stand what they’ve morphed into. She’s going to vote Democrat, even if the nominee is Bernie Sanders.
The GOP is the best example I’ve ever seen of having rope and hanging yourself. Except that they weren’t given the rope, they stole it. And now the Senate is refusing to fulfill its constitutional duties and vote on Merrick Garland.
As to be expected, it’s hurting America, but it’s also hurting them. They didn’t think about how decisions might actually go against them without the ninth Justice. They never think.
Those who benefit from union contracts without being a member of the union are takers, not makers. Free riders looking for free stuff. I agree that the fee should apply only to bargaining costs, but if those free riders don't want to pay any fee, let them negotiate on their own. None of the benefits from the union contract should be applied to them.
5
Pretty much as predicted. GOP in Congress maintains its "mandate," the number one goal is to oppose President Obama, even if it damages itself in the process. Oh, wait, isn't this cut-the-nose-to-spite-the-face? Yes, it is
4
seems like eight justices court works fine.
5
I don't know if this has been covered, but:
*What* exactly would a teacher "negotiate for herself" in this context?
Why would the administration have any motivation to offer anything better than what all the other teachers are getting? To create more work for itself, and animosity from the union?
This is just silly. It sounds exactly like the nonsense about nuns and birth control. Your compensation is your compensation; if you make 50K and have to "pay 1K to the union", that means you make 49K. In other words, the employer is funding the bargaining activities of the union, just as it might fund other activities that benefit the employees, like a health and safety officer.
Would these people be ok negotiating a contract where their salary is called 49K, but they don't have to "make the contribution", and their colleagues get paid 50K, but do?
*What* exactly would a teacher "negotiate for herself" in this context?
Why would the administration have any motivation to offer anything better than what all the other teachers are getting? To create more work for itself, and animosity from the union?
This is just silly. It sounds exactly like the nonsense about nuns and birth control. Your compensation is your compensation; if you make 50K and have to "pay 1K to the union", that means you make 49K. In other words, the employer is funding the bargaining activities of the union, just as it might fund other activities that benefit the employees, like a health and safety officer.
Would these people be ok negotiating a contract where their salary is called 49K, but they don't have to "make the contribution", and their colleagues get paid 50K, but do?
5
It's not the salary. It's not the benefits. It's the fact that peoples' money is being taken involuntarily and being donated to political causes in which they neither believe in nor want to fund. The union dues are a political slush fund for the unions. I believe the liberals were against political slush funds when Nixon was doing it. And for those that say the Senate's obstruction of Garland caused this, two things. Even if he was given a hearing and voted in, it never would have been in time to hear this case. Second, HE WOULD HAVE VOTED WITH THE LIBERALS.
2
Dan,
The fee is for services, not political campaigning. That is a greater amount paid by union members.
People have to get payed to do the work of negotiating and other legal stuff-- it isn't cheap, since they are probably lawyers. Will there be commingling of funds for politics? Maybe, but the numbers are there to look at.
Maybe you could sue and argue that the fee is too high, but what these people are doing is political posturing, just like the nuns.
The fee is for services, not political campaigning. That is a greater amount paid by union members.
People have to get payed to do the work of negotiating and other legal stuff-- it isn't cheap, since they are probably lawyers. Will there be commingling of funds for politics? Maybe, but the numbers are there to look at.
Maybe you could sue and argue that the fee is too high, but what these people are doing is political posturing, just like the nuns.
1
YEAH!!! Way to go!! congress of no!!!!!
10
the wealthy can no longer use SCOTUS to destroy the remaining economic protections for the middle class...
24
We are a full step closer to the Soviet Union's brand of justice administered by elites from on high as long as we don't have a Scalia. Barack the Ideologue doesn't even KNOW a man the stature of a Scalia. He was a frightened of Scalia as he is the Muslim terror groups.
1
re: "without Scalia"
When I was a child I frequently heard the expression, "the Lord works in mysterious ways". Or as Lincoln quoted Psalm 19, ""the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
Hallelujah! a victory for the working man!
When I was a child I frequently heard the expression, "the Lord works in mysterious ways". Or as Lincoln quoted Psalm 19, ""the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
Hallelujah! a victory for the working man!
27
This is a perfect example of the arbitrary results likely to flow from the current 8-member court. With the current Justices basically split along party lines, cases of political sensitivity will tend to be deadlocked in a tie vote, thus simply leaving in place the lower court decision they are considering, whichever side it may favor. The result here would have been the opposite had the lower court so found. We will see a lot more of this until the Senate complies with its obligation to consider a replacement Justice for Scalia.
2
Under the Biden Rule, Democratic-controlled Senate Judiciary Committees never have to consider opposite party nominations even a year and a half before the next election. Can you spell hypocrite without looking?
Reid: The Senate has NO obligation....
Reid: The Senate has NO obligation....
1
McConnel dose not consider that he that he has an obligation to anyone but himself and his narrow minded and corrupt allies.He and they should held in contempt and fired fromm their positions .
1
Yeah, like Garland would have voted with Alito and Thomas. Give me a break.
So the big setback to politicized union leaders has to wait until a year from now. Big whoop.
Are you really lame enough to think that an intact Court centered on the Constitution won't deal with this sooner than later?
This is like Soviet leaders demanding Leftists salute the latest 5-year plan even though it was a doomed to fail as the last three. Sorry, liberals, but what is right and true never waits long.
Are you really lame enough to think that an intact Court centered on the Constitution won't deal with this sooner than later?
This is like Soviet leaders demanding Leftists salute the latest 5-year plan even though it was a doomed to fail as the last three. Sorry, liberals, but what is right and true never waits long.
4
May be better to abide by the GOP "do nothing" mandate and keep an even numbered SCOTUS tied into perpetuity . . . just sayin' . . .
5
Better this than a court with a Leftist majority.
1
This is a great day. Finally we may get a court that everyone may be equal. Not GOP views. Great Day. and it looks like the Dem will stuff it down the believably mess that the GOP has created. They are to blame. Refusing to do anything that a DEM said. The height of hate by McConnell, the thug of Trump, etc.
23
Please describe what would happen if they don't want to benefit from the bargaining?
Are they still a free rider? Don't tell me the law requires the union to bargain for them. I'm asking you what choice the objector has?
It's a tough question.
Are they still a free rider? Don't tell me the law requires the union to bargain for them. I'm asking you what choice the objector has?
It's a tough question.
7
The law requires unions to bargain for and represent free riders. Talk about compulsory state action. What business or other organization is required by the Constitution to give away it's services for free? ........ Exactly. None except unions.
1
No problem. Just have them sign a card saying they'll turn down every pay raise and improvement in working conditions the unions negotiate for, and they can stop paying their fees. They'll need every penny as they scrounge to make ends meet while their union coworkers enjoy a living wage.
21
What sweet comeuppance to every Republican senator who is refusing to do his or her job to confirm or reject President Obama's Supreme Court nominee. It has just blown up in their faces. Teehee!
20
Have to wonder if this is really fair, because some workers obviously benefit more from the union than others, particularly since some have skills also in demand in the private sector, but all must pay the same dues or the equivalent of the nonpolitical portion of the dues.
Would like to see how public union representatives voted when it came to the treatment of private sector workers in whose employers they invested, as well. Did they approve layoffs or oppose wage and benefit hikes? It's a fair question.
Would like to see how public union representatives voted when it came to the treatment of private sector workers in whose employers they invested, as well. Did they approve layoffs or oppose wage and benefit hikes? It's a fair question.
Don't quite get your point here. Some do have skills that are of more value in the private sector than others, but everyone gets to vote. Is that not how democracy works? Union members all vote on a contract -- all. The ones who aren't benefitting from the outcome are always free to leave. My experience is that turnover is lower in union jobs than in non-union jobs. Of course, there are more non-union jobs in the private sector. It is easy to move from one to the other, but there are generally more benefits in the public sector than in the private sector.
6
It seems you hate collective bargaining. If one carries your argument ad absurdum you must also oppose lifeboats on sinking ships: some people cannot swim, let alone take up an oar. Why should they live?
12
Boehner and Obama go to war against the worker needing to find a job,
Trump battles against dictionaries, logic and consistency,
and Kathleen searches out all personal pronouns for deletion.
You learned this ''skill'' in public schools, no?
Trump battles against dictionaries, logic and consistency,
and Kathleen searches out all personal pronouns for deletion.
You learned this ''skill'' in public schools, no?
4
One summer (early 60's) when I was a college kid in Wisconsin, I got a job in a meat-packing plant that paid really well. I was told that I had 90 days to join the union and start paying dues. By that time I was back in school. At the time, I thought closed shops were unfair. But looking back, the best-paid people in town had union jobs. The next summer, they didn't need me, and I had to pump gas and sweep floors for minimum wage.
Later, I went into software, and never did join a union. But I remember the blue-collar neighbors I grew up with, and how unions allowed them to be fairly rewarded for their hard work.
I'd like to see Scott Walker at 70, mopping floors at 2 a.m.
Later, I went into software, and never did join a union. But I remember the blue-collar neighbors I grew up with, and how unions allowed them to be fairly rewarded for their hard work.
I'd like to see Scott Walker at 70, mopping floors at 2 a.m.
61
Many of us would like to see him RIGHT NOW mopping floors at 2 a.m. for minimum wage; but, I get your point.
36
I'd like to see him do mop floors now. He has done his best to damage unions and worker rights in his terms.
2
Was John this judgmental when he was living at home, or did he learn this at a progressive college? Or, are we seeing the bitterness you get from reading the liberal media?
What everyone is failing to consider is: what if these so called "free riders" choose not to be bargained for collectively? What if they choose not to reap the benefits of
Whatever the larger group perceives that they have bargained for? What then? They can negotiate on their own. They don't need a union to speak for them but if you're in a non right to work state, they have no choice. They must join the union.
This is the problem.
Whatever the larger group perceives that they have bargained for? What then? They can negotiate on their own. They don't need a union to speak for them but if you're in a non right to work state, they have no choice. They must join the union.
This is the problem.
4
Everyone is not failing to consider this. It was considered, and the tiny rich majority lost.
9
"They can negotiate on their own."
Well, we've seen the tremendous success of that individual negotiation process, especially in so-called "right to work" states.
Oh, wait, no: we've actually seen wage stagnation, the slashing of benefits, the rising pressure to work unpaid hours, and the massive enrichment of the bosses.
Well, we've seen the tremendous success of that individual negotiation process, especially in so-called "right to work" states.
Oh, wait, no: we've actually seen wage stagnation, the slashing of benefits, the rising pressure to work unpaid hours, and the massive enrichment of the bosses.
19
What if they choose to negotiate on their own versus negotiating as part of the union? See boss chuckle. See boss say he already spent considerable time and effort at the bargaining table with the union representing the bulk of employees. See boss say "Get the heck out of my office and don't waste my time."
1
Does the CTA president actually think that the US Senate appoints Supreme court justices? If so, I can see why Americans object to much of our public education system!
The President appoints them. The Senate passes on them and can hold up appointments and do all sorts of nasty things but it cannot appoint anyone.
The President appoints them. The Senate passes on them and can hold up appointments and do all sorts of nasty things but it cannot appoint anyone.
2
I am a Professor in a state University. I do not think it should be compulsory for me to hire the union to negotiate on my behalf and I should not have to pay some $700 or more as union fees. I get it there is a fair share fee, which is like 95% of the union membership dues, but not being a member removes faculty from the shared governance committees. It is sad day for freedom of choice for Americans to be forced to belong to a union, even if they do not believe in the union creed. The judges on the Supreme courts are political hacks and vote based on their political leaning not jurisprudence or the US constitution. This is about my individual liberty and freedom, not about the right of the unions.
7
I am glad I escaped your classes.
31
I find it very hard to believe that you are a professor at any university.
27
Ben, I agree completely.
It's forced extortion. In non right to work states, the objector has no choice but to pay the agency fee despite what the objector thinks or wishes.
Don't worry though. 26 out of 50 states are right to work and soon, more states will move to this model. Despite the 4-4 tie yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of not paying agency fees in Quinn vs Harris 2 years ago.
It's forced extortion. In non right to work states, the objector has no choice but to pay the agency fee despite what the objector thinks or wishes.
Don't worry though. 26 out of 50 states are right to work and soon, more states will move to this model. Despite the 4-4 tie yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of not paying agency fees in Quinn vs Harris 2 years ago.
1
I am flabbergasted by the hypocrisy of Ms. Friedrichs. She does not have to be a public school teacher or a union member. There are a great many non-union public charter schools, a great many private schools, and a great many Catholic schools in my state of California, and she is welcome to teach at any of them.
Instead, she becomes a public school teacher and objects to paying fees to be represented by the teachers' union at the bargaining table. There was a time I would have accused her for being a phony conservative. That was, however before conservatives started portraying themselves as the victims of any given scenario. So, in my estimation, Ms. Friedrichs is a true, modern-day American conservative. She is also a hypocrite.
Instead, she becomes a public school teacher and objects to paying fees to be represented by the teachers' union at the bargaining table. There was a time I would have accused her for being a phony conservative. That was, however before conservatives started portraying themselves as the victims of any given scenario. So, in my estimation, Ms. Friedrichs is a true, modern-day American conservative. She is also a hypocrite.
43
Modern day conservative and hypocrite are the same!
1
Unless of course she was forced to join after the fact. Forced unionism is not constitutional.
Having to pay for services you do not agree with or want is called a tax. Only government entities have the right under the constitution to take a piece out of someone's income for services they do not agree with. Last time I looked Unions are not part of the government, and having public sector unions extract a piece of income from working people who don't sign up for their "agency" services is only another way to tax income, but this time it is not even recognized as a tax.
2
Thanks for the morning laugh. Yup. I woke up and I'm still here in America where textbooks in Texas called slaves "workers" Tru a new book. I'm sure you can move past Charlotte's Web now
1
Spot on. Thank you.
Unionization derives from the 1st Amendment right of association-in this case , a majority of workers determining in an election that they want to be represented by a union in collective bargaining. Public employee unions are in a dynamically weak position.They do not have the right to strike. Employees who elect to work for an employer represented by a union receive the benefits of contracts negotiated by that union. Employees who object to paying the dues to that union, but take all of the benefits are traditionally called "free riders". Tax evaders are "free riders". Whether you support or oppose labor unions, undeniably they have advanced the interests of working people by establishing minimum wages, employment security, and fair employment practices. The Court may have split the legal issues, but the future of labor unions will depend of their ability to win elections designating them as the collective bargaining agent-and that is a sufficient protection against abuse of the process.
10
What If do not want the union ride and prefer to negotiate my own salary and benefits. Why should I be forced to hire the union to negotiate on my behalf Are unions afraid, if employees are given a choice not to be a member, that unions will die? If not there is no reason to nominate the union as the sole agent of employees without even the permission of the employees.
good luck with those negotiations as a solo employee. employer: "here's your salary, take it or leave it..." you: -_____________-
Ben: May we assume you've entered negotiations with your employer for a 40 hour work week, weekends, occupational and safety practices, etc? Uhuh.
As the Supreme Court faces the increasing prospect of having an eight-member bench for a year or more, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said on Tuesday that "we will deal with it," noting that the court has had an even number of members in the past. - The New York Times, February 23, 2016
Ellen Freilich you nailed it. Let everyone else support you while you ride they're coat tails.
11
As an RN, you should understand that some of your nursing peers may not need representation but, against their will, were forced to join the bargaining unit.
I mean, you could just get another job at another hospital, right?
I mean, you could just get another job at another hospital, right?
Taxation (union fees/dues) for forced representation is travesty of justice due to. Why should those who are working in the public sector which includes teachers be represented in collective bargaining against their free will and have to pay a fee to be represented even though they do not want to be represented for a fee or represented at all. As far as I understand the fee is deducted from their salary every pay check and have no choice. Scalia was missed by it shows the pathetic partisan division of the supreme court. Even though I am disagreement with the establishment Republicans not considering the nominee of the president to the supreme court, I can see the other side of the coin, the way judges are deciding around party lines and not on the merits of the case. It is the dirty politics stupid, on both sides and I get it now.
4
Without taxation we would have no United States of America.
I understand there is a big problem in Kentucky with public workers' pensions being underfunded. How did they get these pensions in the first place?
Perhaps they don't need a pension? If so, neither do our elected officials, police, firefighters, military personnel or anyone else who works for the man.
Kentucky has a fairly high rate of taxation, including the estate tax. I really, really don't want or like paying, but I do want good roads and bridges, education for my kids, clean air and water to drink, a safe place to live, health care and job opportunities, with training paid for by my state, since private companies won't. They are motivated by profit and have shareholders to answer to.
Not all government spending is bad. Getting workers better pay and working conditions does not put money in the pockets of the 1%.
And it ain't gonna happen out of the goodness of their hearts.
I understand there is a big problem in Kentucky with public workers' pensions being underfunded. How did they get these pensions in the first place?
Perhaps they don't need a pension? If so, neither do our elected officials, police, firefighters, military personnel or anyone else who works for the man.
Kentucky has a fairly high rate of taxation, including the estate tax. I really, really don't want or like paying, but I do want good roads and bridges, education for my kids, clean air and water to drink, a safe place to live, health care and job opportunities, with training paid for by my state, since private companies won't. They are motivated by profit and have shareholders to answer to.
Not all government spending is bad. Getting workers better pay and working conditions does not put money in the pockets of the 1%.
And it ain't gonna happen out of the goodness of their hearts.
1
Nowhere in your comment do you say that if a worker refuses to pay for the cost of collective bargaining, they should gain no benefits from collective bargaining. --no raise in pay, no improved health insurance, etc.
1
Memma, there's a good reason for for mandatory union dues and for giving all eligible employees the benefits of a union. If "conscientious objectors" did without the benefits of a union, they'd be cheap labor and employers could cut costs by hiring them. But if dues-paying union membership is optional for the worker, who benefits from the union contract anyway, then some workers will choose to save their money. That's what the "right-to-work" strategy is all about.
If you really don't want to be a union member, look for a job in a non-union shop. There are more such jobs than union jobs.
If you really don't want to be a union member, look for a job in a non-union shop. There are more such jobs than union jobs.
As has most likely already been noted, Garland's vote would by no means be guaranteed to serve unions in this case.
9
In most states fees paid by non-members cover the costs of collective bargaining only, not lobbying and other political activity. Important distinction - since it precludes an individual being forced to subsidize political views she may not share.
Joe K Mpls, MN
Joe K Mpls, MN
9
Fine, it's compulsory education so might as well be as corrupt as possible. Real educators will find a more friendly spot to serve the next generation. One without a chain link fence around it.
1
"Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — can create deadlocks, as they did Tuesday...for a liberal result." This is incorrect. These Justices are judicial moderates. On issues like Stare Decisis and deference to the Executive and Legislative Branches they're closer to Judicial Conservatives. They aren’t seeking to create deadlocks, they’re upholding the law. Confusion is perpetuated by articles like this which can’t distinguishes between political conservatism, judicial conservatism, judicial activism, and judicial radicalism. Scalia, (like Alito and Thomas), was not a Judicial Conservative, he was a Right Wing Political Activist. Central to Judicial Conservatism are Judicial Restraint, Judicial Temperament, avoiding appearance of political favoritism and impropriety, making no declaration about cases not before the Court, especially where a case was likely to be before the Court, and respect for Stare Decisis. Scalia and the gang of 5 right-wing activist Justices consistently violated these core “Judicial Conservative” principles. Scalia berated anyone he politically disagreed with from the bench, stated how he’d rule on cases not before the Court, publicly stated that he'd made decisions based on personal bias as opposed to legal reasoning, and was a member of and advocate for the Tea Party. The last true Judicial Conservative on the Court of Sandra Day O’Connor. This article lacks all understanding of how the judiciary functions.
21
What is most interesting about this argument over history is the tacit assumption on the part of management that the workers should have the same goals as they do--company profit and productivity. There are many, many other issues and management has consistently signalled as much when they want to give the same benefits to non-union workers that union workers work hard and are willing to sacrifice to get. When the unions finally go (and it appears they will) then we will be back in the days of capitalism that Marx saw as what he called the internal contradictions of the system.
1
Union members are adult enough to think for themselves if they should belong to a union. There is no reason to make union membership compulsory and have the union be appointed as the sole agent of all employees.
1
How will Garland now make himself relevant?
1
By fighting against a Scalia replacement, the Republicans are ensuring they are going to get everything they never ever wanted. Again and again and again, until a ninth judge is put in place.
I thank them for it.
I thank them for it.
9
Refusing to pay union dues, but accepting all the salary and benefits negotiated by a union supported by other people's dues, is like going out to dinner with a friend every week for years and letting that friend pay for you each time. In other words, a freeloader is a freeloader is a freeloader.
19
The efficient solution to this classic "free rider" problem, as long posited by political economists, is to assess a fee on all members of the union. All workers covered by the collective bargaining agreement benefit from its results and all should bear a pro rata share of its costs.
Workers who do not want to be covered by a collective bargaining agreement should seek alternative employment.
Workers who do not want to be covered by a collective bargaining agreement should seek alternative employment.
14
The longer the seat stays open the longer the Conservatives have to fret about not being able to legislate from the bench as they have done in the courts of Rehnquist and Roberts.
11
Folks that enjoy Union protections and other benefits should pay dues. Simple. I don't agree with everything the government does with my money, but I still am required to pay taxes. I receive the benefits provided by government in return.
21
Unions are not government. You are confusing a sovereign nation and its government with an agent. We live in a free democratic country, not a communist country.
1
Ben - you are wrong. Through freedom of association unions bring democracy into the workplace - whether public or private. Government never gets any closer to the people then it does through a union.
RE: Scalia. To quote the Bard -"Nothing so became his life like the leaving of it."
14
The Supreme Court should stop deliberations until a new administration is in place and a 9th associate justice names.
2
"Forcing nonmembers to pay for a union’s political activities violates the First Amendment, the court said."
That is an interesting observation in that a union might use the dues paid by say, members of the Green Party to support candidates the Green Party members might find abhorrent.
But I wonder how the Democrats' creation of superdelegates might not do the same thing. The party collects donations from its members, encourages them to vote. The DNC then turns and commits superdelegates to disenfranchise significant portions of voters. I wonder if that has a future court date as well to see if the emperor really has clothes.
That is an interesting observation in that a union might use the dues paid by say, members of the Green Party to support candidates the Green Party members might find abhorrent.
But I wonder how the Democrats' creation of superdelegates might not do the same thing. The party collects donations from its members, encourages them to vote. The DNC then turns and commits superdelegates to disenfranchise significant portions of voters. I wonder if that has a future court date as well to see if the emperor really has clothes.
1
Anyone using even a whisker of intelligence could tell you that shutting out the ninth justice to punish the current administration was a farcical failure. No one knows what is in the minds of the hares blocking our nation from moving forward but they are honest to goodness fools.
15
Wow.
Now can we get the Supremes to review Citizens United while Congress on strike?
Here's hoping!!
Now can we get the Supremes to review Citizens United while Congress on strike?
Here's hoping!!
17
Meanwhile, in another part of the jungle, corporations have been declared by the Supreme Court to be "people" and therefore have the right to spend as much money as they want to support candidates for office (provided they do not coordinate, haha).
And yet, the shareholders of said corporations have no say in to whom and how much their company donates to this or that politician. Is this not an infringement on the First Amendment rights of the shareholders?
I am waiting for the first group of shareholders to sue to repeal Citizens United for that reason.
And yet, the shareholders of said corporations have no say in to whom and how much their company donates to this or that politician. Is this not an infringement on the First Amendment rights of the shareholders?
I am waiting for the first group of shareholders to sue to repeal Citizens United for that reason.
19
of course shareholders have a say -- they elect the board of directors. Ask a fifth grader to explain this to you.
2
Well, I have a fourth grade grandchild, and he explained this to me:
"No one knows just how much companies spend on politics. But with the 2016 election cycle set to cost billions of dollars, you can be sure that corporations will be opening their checkbooks to candidates across the political spectrum. Many shareholders are not thrilled."
http://fortune.com/2015/08/05/corporate-political-donations/
"No one knows just how much companies spend on politics. But with the 2016 election cycle set to cost billions of dollars, you can be sure that corporations will be opening their checkbooks to candidates across the political spectrum. Many shareholders are not thrilled."
http://fortune.com/2015/08/05/corporate-political-donations/
4
Read "Corporate Power, Corporate Control" by Edward S. Herman. It is a basic statement and argument for what has come to be called the "Managerial Thesis," the idea that top management of a large corporation is positioned so as to have no difficulty keeping pesky shareholders at a disadvantage. It is the top managerial clique, not the shareholders, who control a large corporation.
4
You have to wonder how a group that so often preaches about one's "obligation to be self-reliant" can be so blind to one's "obligation to society"?
It leaves you to wonder if those on the right have ever even heard of the social contract, even though they're living in it? - Like fish that don't realize they're in water.
They don't seem to understand that the social contract, and to a very large degree those people who actually work with their hands for a living, are what make this whole thing possible.
For God's sake come to reason!
No man is an island. No one lives in a bubble. We are all in this together! The sooner the right realizes this, the sooner we can get on with it.
Why go it alone, when the community of mankind is there for you? All we ask in return is that you play fair and play nice.
Hopefully, mankind will survive it's adolescence. But, we're never going to get there as a bunch of self-interested individuals only out for themselves.
The only way we get there - is together.
It leaves you to wonder if those on the right have ever even heard of the social contract, even though they're living in it? - Like fish that don't realize they're in water.
They don't seem to understand that the social contract, and to a very large degree those people who actually work with their hands for a living, are what make this whole thing possible.
For God's sake come to reason!
No man is an island. No one lives in a bubble. We are all in this together! The sooner the right realizes this, the sooner we can get on with it.
Why go it alone, when the community of mankind is there for you? All we ask in return is that you play fair and play nice.
Hopefully, mankind will survive it's adolescence. But, we're never going to get there as a bunch of self-interested individuals only out for themselves.
The only way we get there - is together.
12
A one sentence statement on a issue so divisive that the court is evenly split smacks of a political gamesmanship to force a replacement to the bench. Are these grown men and women so petty that they would refuse to write an real opinion, that furthers the understanding of our Constitution, until they get someone to share the work. Shameful!
That's normal for 4-4.
They are not really ruling at all.
It's a crippled court as long as there is an even nylumber of members so ideologically divided.
They are not really ruling at all.
It's a crippled court as long as there is an even nylumber of members so ideologically divided.
6
i always felt that this level of ignorance was what was shameful, starting with being ignorant of the fact that us lib'rls didn't pick this fight, and didn't refuse to so much as hold hearings on grounds we were lying about.
Especially, we commies didn't do it because we were scared to death of shabby little swine like Trump and Cruz, and had developed the fantasy that our re-election was much more important than America.
Especially, we commies didn't do it because we were scared to death of shabby little swine like Trump and Cruz, and had developed the fantasy that our re-election was much more important than America.
4
they voted as they saw fit.
Live with it.
Just as we all live with Citizens United.
you know what's shameful? republican senators refusing to live up to the oath they took when they became senators.
If I do not do the job I was hired to do, I'd be fired. No questions asked, no appeal.
Live with it.
Just as we all live with Citizens United.
you know what's shameful? republican senators refusing to live up to the oath they took when they became senators.
If I do not do the job I was hired to do, I'd be fired. No questions asked, no appeal.
7
This case concerns coercive behavior by public sector unions, which can only be defended by reference to progressive / Marxist values. If only Antonin Scalia had lived a bit longer, we would have a more free nation.
1
Conservatism is headed to the ash heap of history
11
Thinking like a Democrat: drawing a conclusion from a single data point
Unions are responsible for burned out and incompetent tenured teachers just counting down the days until they can get their fat pension. Why the teachers union (or any union) spends so much time defending the dead wood is beyond me.
In Germany, the unions are on the same page as the companies, that's why they are effective. The workers are incredibly productive, and have no tolerance for the slackers who make their company less profitable and their jobs less secure. I assume the Germans have the same attitude toward incompetent teachers.
In Germany, the unions are on the same page as the companies, that's why they are effective. The workers are incredibly productive, and have no tolerance for the slackers who make their company less profitable and their jobs less secure. I assume the Germans have the same attitude toward incompetent teachers.
2
That's not what unions do, and either you know it or you're one of the incompetents you're railing against.
11
“Now it’s time for senators to do their job and appoint a successor justice to the highest court in our land.” BINGO**
4
Nobody should be forced to join a union they don't support. Period.
2
They aren't.
10
When you read "period," you know that there is actually a lt more to explore.
Wishing does not make it do.
Wishing does not make it do.
4
We also don't assault reporters for Breitbart, or abandon our reporters when they've been assaulted merely because we want to cheerlead for a fat blowhard like Donald Trump.
4
Hopefully the stupidity of Majority Leader (Turtle) McConnell will continue through the election and keep this train running all the way to the next Democratic presidential inauguration. Good work Mitch. Keep the government nonfunctional. You sure told them on this one.
11
Unions serve the greater good and protecting them was worthy and right. Without unions, schools would suffer and education would evaporate in this country.
15
Without unions, we could fire the bottom 5% of incompetent tenured teachers, and replace the with far superior teachers who make 1/3 the salary. But the only way you can fire a teacher if they are caught dealing drugs or have an inappropriate relationship with a student. Other than that, the union will support you the to bitter end.
3
Without teacher unions, you couldn't fire anyone, because no one would go to work as a teacher. Incidentally, I am a teacher and a union representative and we have helped teachers who couldn't do their job exit the career gracefully, after they were given fair opportunity to improve. I'm done at the end of this year, I love teaching students but am tired of public insults to our profession. IF was so easy, why is there about to be such a huge shortage?
11
1/3 of the salary why not free?
On his first day in office President Trump should send Kagan and the other three Supremes to work on the Southern wall. At least that way we'd get some useful work out of 'em for their salaries.
You are living in the wrong country.
9
If you like a 40 hour work week, if you like a living wage, if you like being paid overtime, if you like your children to not be child laborers paid slave wages, if you like workplace safety, you can thank the Union.
Your welcome.
Your welcome.
33
American girl Santa Barbara CA 20 minutes ago
"If you like a 40 hour work week, if you like a living wage, if you like being paid overtime, if you like your children to not be child laborers paid slave wages, if you like workplace safety, you can thank the Union.
Your welcome." DITTO***
"If you like a 40 hour work week, if you like a living wage, if you like being paid overtime, if you like your children to not be child laborers paid slave wages, if you like workplace safety, you can thank the Union.
Your welcome." DITTO***
7
Actually, we can thank Teddy Roosevelt. Just sayin'
1
some people actually think that this stuff fell from the sky - and that many had their heads busted to unionize - that it actually came from the largess and altruism of the 1%.
2
Excellent.
3
... and a new day dawns on These United States of America!
2
The Robets' dictatorship neutralized, this time.
5
Unions are just a Labor Corporation! Freedom is best when there is the absence of coercion.
1
Simpleminded thinking cannot help us to address complex problems.
2
To all those Republicans who cry, "I shouldn't have to pay fro something I don't agree with!", I've got three words for you - The Iraq War.
And Bush didn't even win the election.
For the cost of that war, we could have sent a check for over $7500 to every single man woman and child in this country.
I know what you're thinking, "Sure it cost 2 trillion dollars. But, think of all the benefits the American people got in return!"
No comment.
McConnell is the lead train going over the bridge that's blow out, and he's going to take your entire party with him into the gully this November. And it won't be a day too soon.
This is a watershed day in American politics!
And Bush didn't even win the election.
For the cost of that war, we could have sent a check for over $7500 to every single man woman and child in this country.
I know what you're thinking, "Sure it cost 2 trillion dollars. But, think of all the benefits the American people got in return!"
No comment.
McConnell is the lead train going over the bridge that's blow out, and he's going to take your entire party with him into the gully this November. And it won't be a day too soon.
This is a watershed day in American politics!
19
It is only natural that the corporations and conservatives who think that things like infrastructure, legal protections, an educated workforce, and wars should be given to them free think that conservative members of unions should get those benefits for free as well. The ultimate takers, who stand on our shoulders and yell down at the rest of us.
11
Well, now. How will these protesting teachers, who currently benefit from the representation of the union, vote come Nov.? For Trump? Or for Hillary (sorry Bernie)?
I'm very pro-union, but I don't think people should be effectively forced to join one if they choose not to. Such people should also not automatically receive benefits that the union has negotiated (other than for a non-oppressive workplace, which everyone deserves anyway).
2
Unions aren't what's killing this country, its corporate greed. In that regard, unions keep corporations honest.,Also, inequality soars without unions. Thank God Scalia is gone.
25
The workforce at the German and Japanese auto factories in the US are not unionized and have great wages. The unions have given up trying to organize them.
1
Joseph --
You are again promulgating falsehoods.
You are again promulgating falsehoods.
Did you ever think, even for a second, why they have good wages? It's because of the fear of unions, not corporate altruism.
Do you really think corporate America would maintain benefits, safety practices, decent hours, et cetera without unions?
Do you really think corporate America would maintain benefits, safety practices, decent hours, et cetera without unions?
1
Kennedy, Alito, Thomas and Roberts continue to oppose unions. although I'm certain they don't blink an eye when paying their Bar Fees to retain membership in what is probably America's most exclusive and largest paid and incumbent protective membership cartel.
19
The inefficiency and ambiguity of a SCOTUS decision that cannot be precedent should be rather appalling to our citizenry, and even more so to Congress. Now the litigation and the battles over this issue will continue only to come again before the Court on some later date. No matter whether you usually support unions as I do, or oppose them, one should hope that the Court's vacancy be filled and a fully functioning SCOTUS returned.
5
This is not just a victory for unions - it might well prove to be a victory for America, as it would suggest republican senators will (should) re-think their ridiculous threat to not even hold a hearing for the President's nominee to succeed Scalia.
i'm hoping this decision, which I applaud, pushes obstructionists to do the job they so desperately wanted by running for office, and act according to the oath they took once elected to the senate.
i'm hoping this decision, which I applaud, pushes obstructionists to do the job they so desperately wanted by running for office, and act according to the oath they took once elected to the senate.
4
If it weren't for labor unions, American children would still be working in factories instead of going to school, eating lunch, taking naps, etc.
One can look no farther than any coal mine in this country to see what happens to workers where there is no union representation. Mines collapse, hundreds of citations for safety violations go ignored by the rich owners, and miners die.
The most important thing anyone can do who cares about every working person in this country is to vote for any Democratic candidate for the US Senate, especially anyone who is running against the Senate Republicans who are now trying to destroy the Supreme Court with their heads-in-the-sand(box) attitude, along with the rest of the working class people and the middle class.
One can look no farther than any coal mine in this country to see what happens to workers where there is no union representation. Mines collapse, hundreds of citations for safety violations go ignored by the rich owners, and miners die.
The most important thing anyone can do who cares about every working person in this country is to vote for any Democratic candidate for the US Senate, especially anyone who is running against the Senate Republicans who are now trying to destroy the Supreme Court with their heads-in-the-sand(box) attitude, along with the rest of the working class people and the middle class.
21
sounds good to me - children should be paying their own way - the freeloaders.
2
Last time I belonged to a Union it was run by the Mafia.
They took 5 % of my wages.
Hired secretaries who could not type.
And threatened to beat me us up when we asked where all the dues were going.
Oh and we got minimum wage so what exactly did the Union do for us ?
Meanwhile, yes you ought to pay something via Collective Bargaining
but if the Union wants to spend money on political campaigns - the
Union Members should have the right to decline.
They took 5 % of my wages.
Hired secretaries who could not type.
And threatened to beat me us up when we asked where all the dues were going.
Oh and we got minimum wage so what exactly did the Union do for us ?
Meanwhile, yes you ought to pay something via Collective Bargaining
but if the Union wants to spend money on political campaigns - the
Union Members should have the right to decline.
3
You don't know? You already have the right to opt out of paying for political spending.
4
Hi Glenn,
Thanks for the info.
Thanks for the info.
Skanik --
Was that wit?
Was that wit?
Union workers everywhere must have a moment of silence to thank the one person who made this ruling come about. Come on down and claim your prize, Senator Mitch McConnell! A job well done!
11
If those freeloaders who want to reap the benefits of union activism don’t want to pay for it, then I suggest they do not take paid vacations, renounce health care benefits, get fired whenever it pleases a school principal (rightly or wrongly), be paid whatever is the whim of the principal be assigned classes without anybody’s input, at the mercy of the principal. These and other rights are ALL the result of union activism in conjunction with politicians. You wanna play…then pay!
25
You can't reap the benefits without paying for them. If my taxes are used for political activities that I disagree with does that violate my 1st amendment right? When does that line end? Should I then not pay taxes until I have a government that I agree with? By being a citizen I implicitly agree to pay taxes to the government whether I agree with it or not. By deciding to become a teacher you decide to join the union as that is part and parcel to being a teacher as it impacts your job, your security, your pay. And do people always agree with the leadership of their company? No of course not. You may not agree but you participate and you feel ok if you get a bonus. Right? If this is a 1st amendment right, then I'm never paying taxes because I don't agree with the government
9
Wrong. These people did NOT join the union. Therefore they have no say in what the union does, and the union does not represent them. Therefore these "fees" are taxation without representation. Does that phrase sound familiar?
There's nothing more American than rejecting this kind of rip-off. What a sad nation we've become when citizens deride others for pursuing the justice that gave rise to a revolution and our country.
There's nothing more American than rejecting this kind of rip-off. What a sad nation we've become when citizens deride others for pursuing the justice that gave rise to a revolution and our country.
It would seem the best laid plans of mice and men can be undermined by the sudden death of one justice. The folks who underwrote this suit and encouraged the lower court to rule against them so they could appeal it; were counting on Justice Scalia's distaste for unions and labor to give them a decisive victory instead they got the lower court's decision re- affirmed. Now they claim the issue is too important to be decided by a divided court but these are the same people who oppose even courtesy meetings with the President's nominee. Do they really think that they will take back the White House with either of their 2 leading candidates or that they can somehow orchestrate the emergence of a white knight at the 11 hour without alienating a whole lot of supporters?
6
"Public sector workers...enjoy higher salaries, greater job security, and more ample benefits than their private sector counterparts, while continually demanding and getting more. It is time that they shared in the crisis of the rest of the society."
3
Please let me help you, Tek. 24 years ago, when I started teaching, those who went into the private sector made more than I did. Until about 10 years ago, those in finance, business, and the law, especially, loved to jeer at teachers, with our steady, modestly paid jobs, with a pension to pay into so we could retire with dignity. Now, it looks like I may have made the better choice. For all I know, you might have been one of those who jeered those of us who chose to make an honest, if modest living.
But, really, I would prefer my fellow Americans in the private sector have the same rights and protections I do.
My union is not perfect. I've been opposed to some of their actions in the past 2 1/2 decades I've been working. But the alternative, to work in a job with high responsibility, relentless public scrutiny and criticism, much less pay, no job security, and with ever more impovershed students, is a hell I have no intention of entering. I would rather YOU have a decent job, too.
But, really, I would prefer my fellow Americans in the private sector have the same rights and protections I do.
My union is not perfect. I've been opposed to some of their actions in the past 2 1/2 decades I've been working. But the alternative, to work in a job with high responsibility, relentless public scrutiny and criticism, much less pay, no job security, and with ever more impovershed students, is a hell I have no intention of entering. I would rather YOU have a decent job, too.
9
Au contraire, those private-sector workers earn considerably higher salaries for the same professional-level work done by their public-sector counterparts.
I think it is way past time for all workers, public and private, to share in the productivity gains of the last 40 years. Wages have been stagnant for too long - because we don't have strong unions representing the interests of the workers anymore. Only capital has any real power.
I think it is way past time for all workers, public and private, to share in the productivity gains of the last 40 years. Wages have been stagnant for too long - because we don't have strong unions representing the interests of the workers anymore. Only capital has any real power.
8
If you have a problem with public employee salaries, benefits, etc., talk to your local politician that is doing the negotiating. The union is doing what it's members paying for. Negotiating the best package possible.
Yet another debacle that can be laid at the feet of short-sighted, liberal legislation. The National Labor Relations Act set up a government-mandated monopoly on representation of labor. Just read Section 9:
"Representatives designated or selected for the purposes of collective bargaining by the majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for such purposes, shall be the exclusive representatives of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining..."
The specious "freeloading" argument put forth by the die-hard left wing of the SCOTUS and members of this forum fails to hold any water because the US government forbids any alternative representation. It is supremely illogical that the government set up a monopoly for union representation and then force all public sector workers to pay dues to that union.
"Representatives designated or selected for the purposes of collective bargaining by the majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for such purposes, shall be the exclusive representatives of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining..."
The specious "freeloading" argument put forth by the die-hard left wing of the SCOTUS and members of this forum fails to hold any water because the US government forbids any alternative representation. It is supremely illogical that the government set up a monopoly for union representation and then force all public sector workers to pay dues to that union.
3
Majority rules....is democracy. There have always been opportunities for workers to organize to remove democratically elected union leadership, thus changing their representatives and the orientation of union priorities and demands when bargaining, etc. This law prevents companies from setting up their own fake "unions" and splintering the power of the workers--divide and conquer style as had been done in the past. That is, when they weren't actually paying thugs to beat and shoot the workers.
4
from north carolina - the home of coal pollution - racism - bigotry - sweat shops and the civil war - just the place to originate bright ideas.
4
Actually, it's illegal to force union membership. But then, you're pretty much just another shill for the billonaires who brought this suit, so what the heck.
The Time is nigh for a Political Revolution! Once the Bernie Sanders arrives, so will also arrive the greatest wave of Prosperity in American History ! It begins!
3
Who is going to pay for it?
2
Sad fantasy.
A vote for the admirable Bernie now is the equivalent of a vote for Nader back in the day.
This is no time to engage in childish nonsense.
A vote for the admirable Bernie now is the equivalent of a vote for Nader back in the day.
This is no time to engage in childish nonsense.
4
The Revolution will pay for itself! We will export "Bernie Sanders sings the Revolution Blues" Vinyl Records to the rest of the world! And each night we shall feast on the blood of the Rich! A feast fit for Billionaires, my friends!
1
Are NLRB multi-employer collective bargaining agreements inherently beneficial in spite of underfunded pensions reliant upon inflation to fund pensions or bankruptcy to discharge them without payment in full?
Last I read US public school teacher pensions are a half a trillion dollars underfunded. Adjust for appreciation of the dollar (deflation) and a trillion dollars of underfunded pensions is right around the corner.
Not at all "American" for young teachers.
Projections of jobs in 25 years is a minimum of 35% of current jobs to be replaced with "robots". This requires downstream/value added teaching for the new jobs being created while some of the old jobs are being destroyed.
Cost of eliminating a teacher for cause has been an average of $250,000. Very costly tech transfer for American students.
From a cost benefit analysis in the Friedrichs v CA Teachers Association might just compounds the union's duties and responsibilities to perform due diligence on behalf of their members.
Last I read US public school teacher pensions are a half a trillion dollars underfunded. Adjust for appreciation of the dollar (deflation) and a trillion dollars of underfunded pensions is right around the corner.
Not at all "American" for young teachers.
Projections of jobs in 25 years is a minimum of 35% of current jobs to be replaced with "robots". This requires downstream/value added teaching for the new jobs being created while some of the old jobs are being destroyed.
Cost of eliminating a teacher for cause has been an average of $250,000. Very costly tech transfer for American students.
From a cost benefit analysis in the Friedrichs v CA Teachers Association might just compounds the union's duties and responsibilities to perform due diligence on behalf of their members.
You don't understand humanity, apparently.
Education cannot be automized like you are describing. Humans need face time. From humans. The AMA recommends that babies get NO screen time (TV, iPad, phone, movies, etc.) until they're walking and talking. You see, when they're exposed to these machines, they have no context, so they don't acquire language or other skills. We have evolved, with our huge brains, to learn through personal interaction. Even on the current tech curve upwards, I don't trust artificial intelligence (Bill Gates' version got pathologically racist after 24 hours, after all!) with my children. I don't even think 30 years is enough, because we have to develop new ethics, if we are going to expose our children, and I know that's not about to happen. Your blather about it costing $250,000 to replace a human with a box is just that: blather.
Pensions can be funded fully and fairly. But it will take people working together in good faith.
Education cannot be automized like you are describing. Humans need face time. From humans. The AMA recommends that babies get NO screen time (TV, iPad, phone, movies, etc.) until they're walking and talking. You see, when they're exposed to these machines, they have no context, so they don't acquire language or other skills. We have evolved, with our huge brains, to learn through personal interaction. Even on the current tech curve upwards, I don't trust artificial intelligence (Bill Gates' version got pathologically racist after 24 hours, after all!) with my children. I don't even think 30 years is enough, because we have to develop new ethics, if we are going to expose our children, and I know that's not about to happen. Your blather about it costing $250,000 to replace a human with a box is just that: blather.
Pensions can be funded fully and fairly. But it will take people working together in good faith.
1
Unions should be relegated into the history books. Especially public employee unions. Virtually everything they once stood for had been usurped by laws at every level.
Today, they exist only for their own benefit at the cost to all. At least with private sector unions the demands are met with market pressures. Too much is too much. With public unions their demands are endless and their power secured because their is no downward pressure. Politicians who react to the unions to whom they answer, raise taxes and pass along the burden.
CA is going to be hit hard in the next 10-30 years as the pressure from public pensions bankrupts municipalities across the state. Public employee unions have fleeced us.
Today, they exist only for their own benefit at the cost to all. At least with private sector unions the demands are met with market pressures. Too much is too much. With public unions their demands are endless and their power secured because their is no downward pressure. Politicians who react to the unions to whom they answer, raise taxes and pass along the burden.
CA is going to be hit hard in the next 10-30 years as the pressure from public pensions bankrupts municipalities across the state. Public employee unions have fleeced us.
3
One could say the same thing about corporations. Why are Unions any different? Corporations do business with government the same as Unions do.
1
If UTLA were stronger and smarter, we could have prevented ex-superintdent John Deasy from misappropriating 1.5 billion from building repairs (mortgaged over 30 years) in order to buy kids overpriced and old model iPads.
Students with unionized teachers have higher achievement than those with nonunion teachers.
Unionized teachers are better paid, better educated, and empowered to advocate for their students. And the pensions? They can be fully honored, if Californians continue to elect politicians who will keep the bills paid!
Where do conservatives come up with this stuff?
Oh yeah.
Students with unionized teachers have higher achievement than those with nonunion teachers.
Unionized teachers are better paid, better educated, and empowered to advocate for their students. And the pensions? They can be fully honored, if Californians continue to elect politicians who will keep the bills paid!
Where do conservatives come up with this stuff?
Oh yeah.
4
You dont need a union, you need a Facebook group.
When workers have to present their case for the right to maintain organized bargaining power before the highest court in the land, you know that the great middle has capitulated to finance capital's control, the very people they bailed out in '09. Only a hugely misinformed electorate could have brought this about . The media have been bought.
9
Wonderful news for the GOP!.....lol:-)
1
Disgusting union thuggery at its finest. I respected my teachers greatly. My teachers were either nonunion or just nominally unionized. When a teacher performed poorly he or she was replaced. That is the essence of a civil society, and of social justice.
2
As one who has worked more than 30 years in the field of labor law enforcement, I can tell you that management will not do anything that it does not have to do without being regulated either by government or union contracts. Government seeks to improve the wages and working conditions of employees as do unions. It is for the betterment of a fair and just society. Obviously, workers are not on the same bargaining level as employers. Most employment contracts can be terminated at the will of either party. Who do you think holds the upper hand in such a situation? Who needs the collective strength in order to bargain for fair treatment? The argument that you are forced to join a union when you don't want to is preposterous. The ones that reap union benefits should not be just the ones that pay dues for representation. Fair share fees are a reasonable compromise for those who think they can go it alone. Frankly, most opponents are too cheap to pay their fair share or to acknowledge that they can really stand alone in the face of management initiatives; until they suffer an unjust action. Kudos to those few of you that can really stand alone but remember, you have no bargaining power by yourself!
16
Hilarious, GOP!
For whom the bell tolls? It tolls for thee, GOP!
For whom the bell tolls? It tolls for thee, GOP!
6
Workers shouldn't have to pay their fees with a caveat. If they benefit from the members who pay, the nonpaying members should pay retroactively, if the paying members negotiate an increase in salary for everybody from which the non members benefit, it is only fair that they paid their fair share of the negotiating cost. This may be a reasonable compromise.
1
Only depending on what state you live in.
Unfortunately the 4x4s can't be fixed. It's already exposed what a sham "Constitutional law" is.
What defines constitutionality is dependent entirely on what side of the aisle you're on.
Unfortunately the 4x4s can't be fixed. It's already exposed what a sham "Constitutional law" is.
What defines constitutionality is dependent entirely on what side of the aisle you're on.
Senators,
DO YOUR JOB and vote on Justice Garland!
Anything less is treason.
You will pay a price for your actions.
DO YOUR JOB and vote on Justice Garland!
Anything less is treason.
You will pay a price for your actions.
7
Why? Did democratic run senate do their jobs?
Im not sure what makes people think they have to give a darn about a choice obama gives. Dems eould do the same thing if a republican was making a late term appointment to the suoreme court and i bet you would be ok with it.
Im not sure what makes people think they have to give a darn about a choice obama gives. Dems eould do the same thing if a republican was making a late term appointment to the suoreme court and i bet you would be ok with it.
1
You mean like when Dem Dems--led by Joe Biden--heard, voted, and ratified Anthony Kennedy after Reagan nominated him after the lction?
3
How about giving employees this choice: pay the union dues and work under the contract the union negotiates OR don't pay the union dues and haggle your pay and benefits out on your own. Wonder how many would chose the latter.
11
Being a new hire without the benefits of the old hires, new hires don't get as big a pension, pay more for health care....I wouldn't pay the union anything until all the members of the union are on the same terms.
1
This is no different from the 'free rider' dilemma in economics. Without 'commonweal' this country would never have had the post office, near universal electricity, traffic lights, telephone service and so on.
Public goods in the US are pretty minimal by the standards of the western world.
Of course this case is just another attempt to grab even more from those who have even less.
And who was paying for Justice Scalia's retreat when he died on a government salary in a place that costs $$$$ per day, and what did they expect in return?
Public goods in the US are pretty minimal by the standards of the western world.
Of course this case is just another attempt to grab even more from those who have even less.
And who was paying for Justice Scalia's retreat when he died on a government salary in a place that costs $$$$ per day, and what did they expect in return?
11
Welfare is not a public good. It is a disease that hurts everyone. We should be spending that drug money on something helpful to society.
1
What about the welfare provided to the powerful, such as Justice Scalia, in the form of free vacations, etc? Hard to imagine this was due to altruism on the part of the owner of the resort.
The whole issue would go away if unions were not required by law to represent non-members. Then those who chose not to join the union would not have to pay any fees. The flip side is that non-members would get no representation when administrators violated the contract as it applied to them since the union would not be forced to represent them. They'd have to pay the union or their own attorneys to represent them.
I was the president of a large urban local teachers' union. Before we bargained agency fee we spent more than a quarter of our members' dues money defending the rights of people who did not contribute a nickel towards their own defense. When we got the right to bargain an agency fee, all of those non-members either became members or became fee-paying non-members.
Members pay the full dues amount. Fee payers paid the portion of the dues that was spent in bargaining contracts, defending those contracts, and maintaining the infrastructure necessary to do so. Some fee payers challenged our calculations. They were a special category of fee payers called "objectors." Under Abood, we had to pay an arbitrator to hold an annual hearing, and examine the expenses that "objectors" had to pay as their fee.
No one in the entire bargaining unit had to pay for the union's political activity. Dues money or non-member fees can not legally be co-mingled with the funds for political activity, which were and still are voluntary contributions...almost exclusively made by members.
I was the president of a large urban local teachers' union. Before we bargained agency fee we spent more than a quarter of our members' dues money defending the rights of people who did not contribute a nickel towards their own defense. When we got the right to bargain an agency fee, all of those non-members either became members or became fee-paying non-members.
Members pay the full dues amount. Fee payers paid the portion of the dues that was spent in bargaining contracts, defending those contracts, and maintaining the infrastructure necessary to do so. Some fee payers challenged our calculations. They were a special category of fee payers called "objectors." Under Abood, we had to pay an arbitrator to hold an annual hearing, and examine the expenses that "objectors" had to pay as their fee.
No one in the entire bargaining unit had to pay for the union's political activity. Dues money or non-member fees can not legally be co-mingled with the funds for political activity, which were and still are voluntary contributions...almost exclusively made by members.
8
I could not agree more - and I was waiting for someone to point out that the unions are required by law to carry the freeloaders.
What this decision -- because a tie is still a decision -- means is that the Republican agenda that the SCOTUS was supposed to just rubber stamp with Scalia voting is in trouble whether or not McConnell scuttles president Obama's nominee to replace Scalia...
3
"Victory for Unions....."
I do not belong to a union. Never have. Still, there's something about this headline that spells hope.
I do not belong to a union. Never have. Still, there's something about this headline that spells hope.
11
excellent documentary on th history of th union movement in th usa, esp th flint sit down strike
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2Py_vNt4fc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2Py_vNt4fc
I just read an interview with Rebecca Friedrichs by The Washington Post and she says, "I’ve never asked the union to represent me in the first place."
OK, if she does not want to pay for her union's collective bargaining activities, then she should be required to negotiate an individual contract with her employer. She should represent herself by negotiating all her employment conditions (pay, pension, vacation days, access to training, etc) with the California Department of Education.
OK, if she does not want to pay for her union's collective bargaining activities, then she should be required to negotiate an individual contract with her employer. She should represent herself by negotiating all her employment conditions (pay, pension, vacation days, access to training, etc) with the California Department of Education.
18
She knew going in she would have to pay dues, if she had an issue with this she could have worked at a private school.
I wonder if the objectors' attitude would stay firm if the law were changed so that they would NOT be covered by the union-bargained contract. Which is only right ... if they don't pay for bargaining, shouldn't they have to bargain individually with their boss?
Good luck in bargaining with your boss all by yourself, folks. If he even gives you the time of day, that is. What are you going to do to get his attention? Go out on strike all by yourself?
Good luck in bargaining with your boss all by yourself, folks. If he even gives you the time of day, that is. What are you going to do to get his attention? Go out on strike all by yourself?
13
As a Democrat, I do not believe that anyone should be forced to pay dues and join anything they don't want to join. Losing your freedom of choice is just wrong.
4
You don't know enough, Amina. You sound very inexperienced.
2
It's unfortunate that justices interpret the Constitution as they see fit... The teachers not wanting to contribute shouldn't have to...
1
No--they shouldn't have to. But they shouldn't then get any of the benefits negotiated by the union. That's how it works!
1
Let's look at this case: 10 public employees (teachers. . .the folks 'teaching' our children to be ethical, work hard and NOT free load) who benefited financially from the negotiations of the union, refused to pay their fair share to support that union that provided them with good wages. Do these 10 'teachers' believe that they would be able to negotiate individual pay/benefits packages that were better than those the union negotiated? If they truly do believe so, why are they teaching at a public school. Maybe they should be denied tenure or turned out of tenure and sent into the real world?
11
The Senate Republicans are fine with drawing a paycheck for refusing to do their job. The next time a Senate Republican talks about earning your keep, you'll know a hypocrite is mouthing off.
10
You misssed the big Supreme Court story of the day, the order issued in Geeva College v. Burwell regarding alternative methods of making contraceptive coverage to employees of religious organizations.
Prof Allen Shoenberger
Loyola Chicago, School of Law
Prof Allen Shoenberger
Loyola Chicago, School of Law
1
'Victory' is the wrong word to describe narrowly missing a catastrophe, one that is not resolved, only delayed. The really bad new is that Kennedy has revealed himself to be squarely on the wrong side of this issue.
6
Now for a better future for unions.
I'm told that in Sweden that the unions and capitalists see each other as allies, and quite successfully. How did they do that, if true, and how can that work here? I cannot see the long term viability of the current adversarial state.
I'm told that in Sweden that the unions and capitalists see each other as allies, and quite successfully. How did they do that, if true, and how can that work here? I cannot see the long term viability of the current adversarial state.
3
How can the teachers say they will not pay for the services, but then say, they want the services when they need them? That is a classic case of wanting to have your cake and eat it too!
13
Everyone please e-mail thank yous to Grassley and McConnell for aiding the Unions by splitting the court evenly between liberals and conservatives. Scalia proibably rolling in his grave.
3
If the majority of effected employees have voted to unionize a shop, then as an employee you pay dues for the services provided by that union whether you agree or not. Or you work someplace else. If you want to work in a non-union environment fine, go to work for one. But you do not get the benefits of collective bargaining (including retirement benefits and health insurance coverage) while refusing to pay your fair share. But, of course, this is not about teachers at all but about wealthy elites selecting specific cases with an overall goal of further weakening unions. The tide is turning against the oligarchs and the teachers coaxed into this phony suit should be ashamed.
12
Let me see; Unions or the unrestrained capitalism that has brought workers wages and rights to a staggering low for decades now?
I'll take Unions.
I'm a union member and believe me, although my income is so much less than what any of the top brass in my industry, it is fair. And that's all I ask.
You ask every worker at a Walmart if their wage is fair. I mean really ask. I think you know the answer to that.
Isn't it funny that the timing of the difference in CEO and Corporate Presidents wages becoming exponentially higher than their underlings occurred at the same time that Unions were under attack and declining.
Don't drink the Heritage Foundation Kool-Aid people. Unions have benefitted all of us for more that 100 years now.
I'll take Unions.
I'm a union member and believe me, although my income is so much less than what any of the top brass in my industry, it is fair. And that's all I ask.
You ask every worker at a Walmart if their wage is fair. I mean really ask. I think you know the answer to that.
Isn't it funny that the timing of the difference in CEO and Corporate Presidents wages becoming exponentially higher than their underlings occurred at the same time that Unions were under attack and declining.
Don't drink the Heritage Foundation Kool-Aid people. Unions have benefitted all of us for more that 100 years now.
17
Thankfully, Donald Trump has not been elected yet, as there is no telling how Dennis Rodman would have voted.
5
A wonderful outcome. Scalia won't be missed by those of us receiving pay checks and answering to bosses.
11
Public Unions have bankrupted the state / cities / etc.
it's only accounting fiction that keeps the state alive
it's a joke
these unions massively take advantage of the state
truly unfair
.
1
Why have union membership rates stayed high in Canada, which faces all the same globalization pressures as the United States? Mostly because Canadian labor law is more union-friendly than U.S. law, which has been gutted over the past 60 years by anti-union Republicans and special interest. The political climate has turned against unions and their members. And some governors of revenue-starved states are blaming public sector unions for their woes and are aggressively attempting to reduce benefits and curtail collective argaining rights. Public sector unions account for more than half of all union members in the United States.
Most research finds that the decline of unions has contributed to perhaps a third of the growth of income inequality in the United States. It's not the whole story, not by a long way, but it's a significant chunk of the story.
Dues are the bricks and mortar of our labor movement, but in many unions dues are a taboo subject. From per capita taxes to initiation fees and special assessments. Rank-and-file members rarely get a full picture of their own union’s dues structure, much less a sense of what’s happening across the labor movement as a whole. The concern of many rank-and-filers when it comes to dues is about the amount they pay, how the money is spent, and how it is allocated between the national and local union.
Unions need to clean up their act.
Most research finds that the decline of unions has contributed to perhaps a third of the growth of income inequality in the United States. It's not the whole story, not by a long way, but it's a significant chunk of the story.
Dues are the bricks and mortar of our labor movement, but in many unions dues are a taboo subject. From per capita taxes to initiation fees and special assessments. Rank-and-file members rarely get a full picture of their own union’s dues structure, much less a sense of what’s happening across the labor movement as a whole. The concern of many rank-and-filers when it comes to dues is about the amount they pay, how the money is spent, and how it is allocated between the national and local union.
Unions need to clean up their act.
4
So, Republicans, how do you think this 8-member Court is working out for you?
A bit of irony here in your decision?
A bit of irony here in your decision?
5
Frederichs doesn't seem to realize if he drops out of CA public schools and tries to deal for his own salary that he will not be hired in most cases. Private schools as a rule paid 1/2 or less than most public schools and charter schools are often the same. One's experience seldom has much to do with how much he's paid.The schools determine the price, not the interviewee. A few high priced private school may meet his standards but unless he comes from the top circle of society those schools won't even interview him, let alone hire him at HIS price.
7
While the focus is on the fact that Scalia's death resulted in a 4-4 decision, let's not overlook that 4 justices voted to overturn established precedent. The activist conservative bench is still in business.
8
Great, another ruling that removes individual liberty and choice. Another model where a socialistic establishment (the labor union) does not provide enough value to attract folks on merit, they must be legislated to support it.
2
To have fewer party-line court decisions, we need more moderate judges. Like Kennedy, like Garland. Then even 5-4 decisions won't feel political, and the Court will be a respected unifying force.
2
The GOP Senators and good ol' Mitch are really shooting themselves in the foot. Instead of forcing Obama to throw a moderate on the bench, we're going to a get a string of 4-4 decisions on critical issues that will sabotage GOP priorities more than liberal ones. Keep up the good work subverting the constitution and grinding justice to a halt!
5
Good News! Scalia's passing, as a "Great Jurist" and duck hunting companion to Dick Cheney, will be missed by some. Not by me, and most people who are hopeful for a more liberal and less conservative activist court!
9
This unfortunately is going to have the effect of reinforcing the intransigent behavior of Republicans in their project to control the choice of the replacement for A. Scalia. They will see this as an example of why they must have a reliable and predictable nominee to fill that seat and they will not as many hope, see the utter folly of their newest interpretation of the constitution
3
Yay! That's one for the people!
7
My taxes support some government messaging and diplomacy which I oppose. That's not considered compelled speech. What's different about union dues?
8
A translation from far right speak.
"With a divided court, thousands of public servants around the nation must still financially assist a government union that they disagree with."
We found eight people who want to work for peanuts so that billionaires can buy another condo and used that to try and destroy unions.
“Now it is up to state legislatures to provide public employees with the freedom to choose whether or not to pay for union representation.”
Since Scalia is dead we will have to use our control of the legislators to destroy the middle class on a state by state basis. It’s harder, but our greed knows no shame.
"With a divided court, thousands of public servants around the nation must still financially assist a government union that they disagree with."
We found eight people who want to work for peanuts so that billionaires can buy another condo and used that to try and destroy unions.
“Now it is up to state legislatures to provide public employees with the freedom to choose whether or not to pay for union representation.”
Since Scalia is dead we will have to use our control of the legislators to destroy the middle class on a state by state basis. It’s harder, but our greed knows no shame.
11
A perfect translation!
4
If a non-union member working in a union shop gets the benefit of a union collective bargaining outcome. why shouldn't they be paying? The person in front of me just paid for the same item I have, why should I pay for mine?
7
If memory serves, among their complaints were issues related to conflicting points of view as not only teachers but also as citizens, taxpayers and parents. Among the concerns were the union demands during contract negotiations that would force smaller class size, regardless of the position of the elected Board of Ed, the continuance of tenure and seniority, and a substantial pay raise.
1
Touché Obstructionists.
Well Played, Supreme Court.
It appears that the Supreme Court will use its calendar as its check and balance over the US Senate. Today's decision clearly "spanks" the Republican obstructionists for shirking their duty to vet our President's nominee to the Supreme Court, as required by law.
Even the Republican appointed Justices have expressed disapproval of the Senate Republican's willful misconduct (my choice of words) as the Senate refuses to even meet with Merrick Garland, the President's nominee.
The consequence: may very well be the setting for decisions, those matters, whose tie in the Supreme Court, would bolster Appellate decisions that would punish Republican rhetoric!
Bottom line: The Supreme Court is telegraphing the Senate, that they leave the vacancy on the Bench at their own peril!
Bravo!
Encore!
Well Played, Supreme Court.
It appears that the Supreme Court will use its calendar as its check and balance over the US Senate. Today's decision clearly "spanks" the Republican obstructionists for shirking their duty to vet our President's nominee to the Supreme Court, as required by law.
Even the Republican appointed Justices have expressed disapproval of the Senate Republican's willful misconduct (my choice of words) as the Senate refuses to even meet with Merrick Garland, the President's nominee.
The consequence: may very well be the setting for decisions, those matters, whose tie in the Supreme Court, would bolster Appellate decisions that would punish Republican rhetoric!
Bottom line: The Supreme Court is telegraphing the Senate, that they leave the vacancy on the Bench at their own peril!
Bravo!
Encore!
8
To all those workers who bemoan the fact that they are not making a living wage, or get paid overtime etc. remember that if you had a union you would have all those things. Plus guaranteed vacation, sick time and on and on. You have been snookered by these Right to work states. What a joke. workers need to get smart and get unions.
24
Are you referring to the Wonder Bread unions or the TWA unions or the A&P unions?
1
How about the railroad unions
Here's a thought. It should be the law that no organizations of any type can contribute to a candidate or political campaign. Further, groups lobbying or running issue ads should never mention a specific candidate or politician. This relives most of the concern about "forced political speech". Unions deserve to be paid for their efforts on behalf of workers, members or not. Only individual, actual human beings should influence the political process, not pretend people like corporations, unions, clubs, associations, or other structures that exists to be "financial people".
5
Years ago, I was the president of the teachers union in the CUHSD in CA. We had the same problem regarding the payment of dues/negotiation fees.
The complainers had no problem with accepting the benefits that we were able to gain. One could only wish that there could be a two tier salary and benefit schedule--one for union members and one for those so 'dedicated' to teaching that they could not care less about salary and benefits. Hope that my effort at sarcasm in the previous sentence does not go unnoticed.
The complainers had no problem with accepting the benefits that we were able to gain. One could only wish that there could be a two tier salary and benefit schedule--one for union members and one for those so 'dedicated' to teaching that they could not care less about salary and benefits. Hope that my effort at sarcasm in the previous sentence does not go unnoticed.
16
I cannot believe our extremist GOP court...
Unions were voted in just like political candidates are...50%+
If you disagree, you can either petition your union or disband your union.
Opting out of fees is like opting out taxes that 50% of your fellow citizens voted for at the ballot box, either directly or indirectly.
Unions are American as apple pie, right-to-work is fascism.
Take a look at the UN Charter...
Unions were voted in just like political candidates are...50%+
If you disagree, you can either petition your union or disband your union.
Opting out of fees is like opting out taxes that 50% of your fellow citizens voted for at the ballot box, either directly or indirectly.
Unions are American as apple pie, right-to-work is fascism.
Take a look at the UN Charter...
6
Thank you Mitch McConnell! I'm sure your colleagues are just pleased as punch with the results so far of your (and their) refusal to fulfill their constitutional duty to consider a replacement for Justice Scalia. And look at how your actions have now bolstered one of your favorite things - unions! It's not clear Garland would have supported the liberal side of the court on this one. May the Republican party continue to implode under the weight of your obstructionism, on top of the lunacy of the Trump and Cruz candidacies. How much more divorced from reality and the public interest can you guys get?
6
In principle, count me as a person who favors unions. Yet, I can see a valid argument could be established that it is unfair to force people to pay for something with which they disagree (of course, this happens in other contests all the time, every day). The Supreme Court justices, however, seem to be ruling from the basis of personal prejudice, not principle. The right wing justices are there to push what the right wing wants, forget about the law or any higher principles. This Court is a political arm of the Republican party and as such is not worthy of much, if any, respect. How much better are these black robed know-it-alls than a gang of thugs in a dark alley?
We must end life terms for those who serve on the Court and they must be ended as quickly as possible. Others have suggested 12 yr. terms. That sounds about right. Life terms are an affront to democracy and to the progress of human intellectual and social development.
Doug Terry
We must end life terms for those who serve on the Court and they must be ended as quickly as possible. Others have suggested 12 yr. terms. That sounds about right. Life terms are an affront to democracy and to the progress of human intellectual and social development.
Doug Terry
2
Just curious, the reporter said the liberal wing can attract the vote of Kennedy, when was the last time Kennedy voted with them? Is this still a possibility or has he moved permanently to the right?
1
Hurray! No more freeloaders who want to get union wages and benefits but not pay union dues.
11
This ironic turn of affairs tells me that God loves unions.
8
You knew God loved the working class when his son Jesus made his quip about the rich man and the eye of a needle.
3
The winds of change switch Left !!
Scalia's demise is symbolic of a different direction that starting to occur in this nation. Progessive Era 2.0 ?
Scalia's demise is symbolic of a different direction that starting to occur in this nation. Progessive Era 2.0 ?
4
The National Rifle Association fights on your behalf to preserve your Second-Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
You didn't ask it to -- it never asked your permission to -- but it does. No one ever asked you if the policy aims the NRA pursues on your behalf are the policy aims you favor. But these are your rights, and so the NRA's work benefits you.
And boy, is their work expensive.
Your bill from the NRA will be in the mail.
And under the logic of today's SCOTUS non-decision, it's only just that each and every one of you be forced to pay.
You didn't ask it to -- it never asked your permission to -- but it does. No one ever asked you if the policy aims the NRA pursues on your behalf are the policy aims you favor. But these are your rights, and so the NRA's work benefits you.
And boy, is their work expensive.
Your bill from the NRA will be in the mail.
And under the logic of today's SCOTUS non-decision, it's only just that each and every one of you be forced to pay.
2
No doubt after this decision, the Republican Oligarchs led by Charlie Koch, will work even harder to get Ted Canada elected. Then Mr. Canada can chose another Scalia like justice. One who is bought and paid for by the Oligarchs to rule in their favor just like Scalia.
2
Unions have no place in the modern world. They served a limited purpose back in the 1930s, and should have disappeared shortly after that.
I don't believe people, such as welders, tile setters and the like deserve $30/hr for blue collar work. I also don't believe that most Americans in Unions deserve the over inflated wages they get. It's no wonder manufacturing LEFT the USA for other countries. Unions have destroyed the way of life in America.
I don't believe people, such as welders, tile setters and the like deserve $30/hr for blue collar work. I also don't believe that most Americans in Unions deserve the over inflated wages they get. It's no wonder manufacturing LEFT the USA for other countries. Unions have destroyed the way of life in America.
2
Unions formed to protect workers from unscrupulous, oppressive employers. It is ironic that the only significant unions existing today are for government employees.
2
Yes, the problem is that working class Americans are too rich! If only they were poorer, things would be so much better!
Do you listen you yourself??
Do you listen you yourself??
4
China Mike - go set your own tile! And good luck with that welding project, too.
One of the reasons earthquakes in the USA cause less fatalities compared to other countries is the traditionally high quality work of our journey-level unionized building trades, along with the public-sector unionized government planners and building inspectors. It is a system that works and, we should be proud of it.
Oh, maybe we should import our buildings from lower-wage countries, too.
One of the reasons earthquakes in the USA cause less fatalities compared to other countries is the traditionally high quality work of our journey-level unionized building trades, along with the public-sector unionized government planners and building inspectors. It is a system that works and, we should be proud of it.
Oh, maybe we should import our buildings from lower-wage countries, too.
Reading the comments here it is clear that most people think the liberals voting as a block is fair but that the conservatives are obstructing progress by voting as a block. So I guess the takeaway is block voting is OK If it goes your way!
6
Fighting for equality is not the same as fighting for inequality.
2
Unions are corrupt, but the alternative is worse. Because once handed the slightest bit of power, people tend to become self serving.
So yea, forcing people to pay dues when they don't want to is wrong. But allowing this Right To Work nonsense to become the law of the land would decimate whats left of the middle class.
There are some serious issues facing U.S. society and we'd better figure it out soon. Starting with term limits for Supreme Court Justices.
So yea, forcing people to pay dues when they don't want to is wrong. But allowing this Right To Work nonsense to become the law of the land would decimate whats left of the middle class.
There are some serious issues facing U.S. society and we'd better figure it out soon. Starting with term limits for Supreme Court Justices.
4
123, Not all people are bad, not all Unions are corrupt.
The Justices serve permanent terms to remove corruption. A Justice is free to rule however they interpret the law, and is never beholden to another individual or another group. It is actually a very good system. By some estimates, our legal system is the best the world has ever seen.
The Justices serve permanent terms to remove corruption. A Justice is free to rule however they interpret the law, and is never beholden to another individual or another group. It is actually a very good system. By some estimates, our legal system is the best the world has ever seen.
Right to Work States lost VW, a union company. VW would have brought good jobs to poor States; the leadership thought it was better to keep a right to work for low wages than to bring in a large international company with union participation. Right to Work is a way to pay low wages for the same manual labor unionized workers do at higher wages. Unions built the middle class after WWII. My father, a manager, preferred to have union workers, because he had union leaders to work out agreements. He had no wildcat strikes, no random complaints about hours etc. And, this was a large can company which ran 24/7 during WWII. There were women, high school kids, and men who were not physically okay for the draft. It worked; they worked and made good wages. My father got the cans made and stacked into box cars, on their way to packing sheds. After the war many of his former workers returned. He also promoted the first Mexican man to a position of manager in the warehouse. He told the union leadership he was going to do that, and there was not the problem there could have been back in the day in the Central Valley. Before unions men could be worked until they could no longer work, and then let go. No benefits, pensions or insurance. Just dumped out on the street. Unions give dignity to work.
8
I read this story and was disappointed, in the lack of information and understanding. It is really a non-story since this decision is not precedential. It simply leaves the status quo, and will leave the question open such that a later case will be allowed to revisit the issue, presumably when other circuit courts disagree (as they are free to do since no precedent was set here), and a new case comes to a fully staffed Supreme Court.
You can trust that all the appellate and supreme court lawyers out there, not to mention the unions and their familiar foes on the right, are just getting their ducks in a row right now, getting ready for the next fight, after a new justice is confirmed.
You can trust that all the appellate and supreme court lawyers out there, not to mention the unions and their familiar foes on the right, are just getting their ducks in a row right now, getting ready for the next fight, after a new justice is confirmed.
1
All the more incentive for Republicans to hang tough on confirmation. It's very possible that no nominee will be confirmed until the Presidency and the Senate are in the hands of the same party. We could have multiple vacancies. Wouldn't be the end of the world.
It appears the Republicans are gambling they are going to win the presidential election. As it stands now there's a fat chance they'r w going to win. I hope thhey approve of Sec. Clinton's choice or Sen. Sander's pick. It'll make Prez Obama's choice look very moderate.
8
I am a proud retired teacher and past member of my union's executive committee and grateful that I live in a Right to Work State where it was my choice to join or not to join; that IS American.
6
I assume you are enjoying the pension that your union negotiated for you?
11
Many years ago, I became a teacher in California and was initially incensed when I learned I didn't really have the choice in paying my union dues. However, after a couple years teaching, my attitude completely changed. My union helped us negotiate a (long overdue) cost of living raise, gave us paid time for chaperoning extracurricular activities, guaranteed us time during the day for lesson prep, a certain number of sick days & professional enrichment days...and on and on. Yet these things are easy to take for granted now. Unions are vital for the well being of the work force. Any attempt to try and weaken the union's ability to help ALL workers will ultimately harm every member...but by that time, it will be too late.
31
The legislative branch of the American government has been dormant for 8 years under Senator McConnell, and now it wants to infect the executive and judicial branches into sleep
12
It's about time for the court to move ahead and again become an institution of the people, by the people and for the people---not for the oligarchy. Reactionaries have held sway for over forty years and have caused untold damage to the country, their worst decision by far being Bush v. Gore, closely followed by Citizens Untied and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act. Now if the Bernie Bots don't turn victory into defeat by sitting home and pouting on November 8 rather than vote for the despised Hillary Clinton, the court will return to sanity under the new Democratic president and her newly appointed ninth justice.
5
Just thinking about bargaining unit dysfunction....
Seems that many members of the Senate are "on strike," refusing to do their jobs for which they are duly paid. But who is to lock them out, denying them their salaries and benefits until they decide to resume their duties? Unfortunately, the constitution does not provide for such a scenario since it was rightly assumed that everyone would be trustworthy and honorable.
Hate to say it, but a parliamentary system is starting to look better and better.
Seems that many members of the Senate are "on strike," refusing to do their jobs for which they are duly paid. But who is to lock them out, denying them their salaries and benefits until they decide to resume their duties? Unfortunately, the constitution does not provide for such a scenario since it was rightly assumed that everyone would be trustworthy and honorable.
Hate to say it, but a parliamentary system is starting to look better and better.
8
It would be an interesting legal distinction to claim that compulsory union dues suppress 1st Amendment Free Speech, but allocation of corporate funds in direct support of candidates and PAC's, thus reducing corporate profits, do not. Why, as an employee and shareholder who prefers one party, must I be treated one way by my corporation while union members are treated another? If 'corporations are people", then aren't unions also?
My shareholder return and my compensation can be reduced in many ways if my company pours millions into campaigns. If that does not represent my views, don't I share the same 1st Amendments as the plaintiffs in this case? My company could easily outspend any contributions I might make, and even lend the corporate jet to GWB during the primaries, as Enron did. Did they ask whether any Enron shareholders didn't support GWB? FYI, I was one who did not.
Corporations, unions, and governments often need to act like people in contracts, ownership, and even giving. But taking political sides is limited in many ways by governments, i.e. not using on-duty government workers and resources to campaign. It ought to be likewise restricted for corporations, unions, etc.
My shareholder return and my compensation can be reduced in many ways if my company pours millions into campaigns. If that does not represent my views, don't I share the same 1st Amendments as the plaintiffs in this case? My company could easily outspend any contributions I might make, and even lend the corporate jet to GWB during the primaries, as Enron did. Did they ask whether any Enron shareholders didn't support GWB? FYI, I was one who did not.
Corporations, unions, and governments often need to act like people in contracts, ownership, and even giving. But taking political sides is limited in many ways by governments, i.e. not using on-duty government workers and resources to campaign. It ought to be likewise restricted for corporations, unions, etc.
4
Good point from B Franklin, Chester PA. If corporations are people, then unions should be classified as people too.
4
The absence of a defeat does not make for a victory. Public unions achieved nothing they hadn't already achieved at the Ninth Circuit. True, a loss was anticipated. But a loss may well be om the horizon. Those opposed to public unions are everywhere. If they get a Republican to replace Scalia, they'll be right back before the Court. Moreover, they can litigate in state courts across the country. It's sad when pro-union forces celebrate a tie as a victory. I see it as an acknowledgment that not losing to the anti-union forces is cause for celebration. In the long run, there is little reason for optimism. Public unions may have dodged a bullet. But their future is grim.
The 2016 November election will be a referendum on whether old mush brain McConnell, from the state that is first in everything worst, will be permitted to continue his dirty tricks and perverted political games at the expense of our Nation by single-handedly mucking up all three branches of the Federal government. Maybe in the old Confederacy that plays well but to the majority of Americans we find his games at our expense disgusting and deviant.
Mush brain McConnell's refusal to call a vote on Judge Garland's nomination is his attempt to 'have his cake and eat it too'. He wants the purple state incumbent GOP Senators to feign reasonableness and trick their constituents into keeping a GOP Senate majority because hey Mark Kirk seems reasonable, right? The old South incumbents can continue with their obstruction to satisfy their base. He is trying to protect his grip on the Senate Majority by shielding the incumbent GOP Senators from having to take any position so the electorate across the Nation won't realize how extreme and perverted the GOP really is in their fanatic obstruction.
If you live in any state other than the 11 states of the old Confederacy and you are sick and tired of old mush brain McConnell's dirty tricks and his mucking up the entire federal government all three branches currently then vote for your Democratic Senate candidate and send old mush brain McConnell out on a rail.
Mush brain McConnell's refusal to call a vote on Judge Garland's nomination is his attempt to 'have his cake and eat it too'. He wants the purple state incumbent GOP Senators to feign reasonableness and trick their constituents into keeping a GOP Senate majority because hey Mark Kirk seems reasonable, right? The old South incumbents can continue with their obstruction to satisfy their base. He is trying to protect his grip on the Senate Majority by shielding the incumbent GOP Senators from having to take any position so the electorate across the Nation won't realize how extreme and perverted the GOP really is in their fanatic obstruction.
If you live in any state other than the 11 states of the old Confederacy and you are sick and tired of old mush brain McConnell's dirty tricks and his mucking up the entire federal government all three branches currently then vote for your Democratic Senate candidate and send old mush brain McConnell out on a rail.
9
Well said! Out on a greased rail!!!
1
Why do the non-unionized teachers have to receive the improvements the unions bargain for? Can't they be put on a list that the systems can arbitrarily decide to give or not give the benefits of collective bargaining? Are their numbers so large? Next time the unionized teachers get a raise. The non-unionized ones can just not get one if so chosen by the state/local govt..
I'm certain there are so many reasons it doesn't work this way. But why not?
I'm certain there are so many reasons it doesn't work this way. But why not?
2
This is the very reason we can't have Obama putting someone on the Supreme Court. This was a slam dunk case. Nobody should be required to pay dues to an organization they don't want to join. This is down right theft.
1
The theft of services provided by said Union, like raises, sick days, healthcare, etc. you mean...
12
And no corporate shareholder should be forced to give up any micron of a profit to fund a PAC that doesn't represent his/her political beliefs. #killCitizensUnited
3
If you share in the benefits, you share in the cost of the union. If a workplace is unionized, you join the union. If you don't want to be in a union, get a job where there is no union. You don't get to choose. That is how the adult world works. And, it is part of a social contract among workers.
2
The premise of Liptak article is that Scalia's agenda was to 'move the law to the right'. Scalia believed the Constitution is an enduring document and criticized those who thought of the Constitution as a 'living document' without giving weight to the intent of the writers. He interpreted laws without going beyond the intent of the legislators who made the law. He was against advocating from the bench as many of the readers praise other justices for their 'liberal' positions.
To say it's a 'victory' or 'loss' where members of the Court follow political ideology either way is a loss for everyone.
To say it's a 'victory' or 'loss' where members of the Court follow political ideology either way is a loss for everyone.
1
With all due respect to dmj15, I would challenge the premise. It is true that Justice Scalia believed that one could only read the exact words in the text and make all judgments from that, literal vantage.
The art and science of reading very old or ancient documents has been discussed in many fields for many years. As an example, how do you read the Book of Genesis from the Hebrew Scriptures? The position that Justice Scalia took was a minority position. The vast majority of serious historians, law scholars and others who use hermeneutic tools have come to believe that one has to take various principles the literature and consider factors such as intent. How else could a Jewish or Christian understand Genesis in light of the Big Bang theory except to be a fundamentalist (which most are not)? How can you apply free speech to the internet.
Not only was Justice Scalia's approach wrong, in my opinion, he didn't even apply it uniformly. Justice Scalia was a conservative who did not hesitate to violate his own interpretive theories when it helped conservative issues.
The art and science of reading very old or ancient documents has been discussed in many fields for many years. As an example, how do you read the Book of Genesis from the Hebrew Scriptures? The position that Justice Scalia took was a minority position. The vast majority of serious historians, law scholars and others who use hermeneutic tools have come to believe that one has to take various principles the literature and consider factors such as intent. How else could a Jewish or Christian understand Genesis in light of the Big Bang theory except to be a fundamentalist (which most are not)? How can you apply free speech to the internet.
Not only was Justice Scalia's approach wrong, in my opinion, he didn't even apply it uniformly. Justice Scalia was a conservative who did not hesitate to violate his own interpretive theories when it helped conservative issues.
7
His approach was textualism, not strict constructionism. Quoting Scalia strict constructionism is "a degraded form of textualism that brings the whole philosophy into disrepute." He interpreted the law giving effect to the intent of the legislators without (key word) going beyond their intent thus limiting a judge's intent to broadened the purpose. Personally, without going into more detail, I feel legislators should craft better legislation taking interpretation of their intent away from the courts. I would settle on them actually reading the bill before signing it but I think that's asking too much from them. It's not the 'unelected' judges job to write law.
With respect to your comment re Genesis, I believe you are referencing Edwards v Aguillard where Scalia ended up writing the dissent. It's been awhile since I've read that opinion so I won't comment on it.
It was the author's tone, for example with respect to the authors comment regarding Scalia's questions were "consistently hostile to the unions"...Scalia USUALLY asked more questions than the other eight combined. He was also known for posing various hypothetical questions.
I liked Scalia's approach, but then again I don't like judges legislating form the bench.
With respect to your comment re Genesis, I believe you are referencing Edwards v Aguillard where Scalia ended up writing the dissent. It's been awhile since I've read that opinion so I won't comment on it.
It was the author's tone, for example with respect to the authors comment regarding Scalia's questions were "consistently hostile to the unions"...Scalia USUALLY asked more questions than the other eight combined. He was also known for posing various hypothetical questions.
I liked Scalia's approach, but then again I don't like judges legislating form the bench.
2
1. all selected supreme court members must be independent with no ties to any party. Yes tough but fair.
2. No Lawyers and judges should be allowed to be a members of Congress or the Senate.
3. We need term limits with reduction in pay to no more than the national average of workers. It is a set law.
4.No super pacs of any kind and no corporate donations or union donations or special interest groups to candidates. Only individual donations. That way we see the real people behind the scenes. That includes when elected as an official.
2. No Lawyers and judges should be allowed to be a members of Congress or the Senate.
3. We need term limits with reduction in pay to no more than the national average of workers. It is a set law.
4.No super pacs of any kind and no corporate donations or union donations or special interest groups to candidates. Only individual donations. That way we see the real people behind the scenes. That includes when elected as an official.
1
Just one more item: An extreme limit on the amount of money any individual can contribute to any political campaign.
Sadly, this is about unfunded liabilities, not union dues. We think the $20 trillion deficit is the big problem. Well, it is; but just as important are unfunded liabilities. And these sneak in to the budget. They really are not visible to the citizen. But they sure are visible to governors. And they sure do produce votes for those governors.
So, we're looking at unfunded liabilities here. Let's not forget that. By allowing unions to control state capitals, we are sure that state capitals will go broke. There's not a lot of spine in state government.
Unions have combined with state legislatures to produce Illinois New York Rhode Island and others. The states, effectively, are broke. The corruption between the unions and state government is so obvious it brings nothing but pain to think about it.
So, we're looking at unfunded liabilities here. Let's not forget that. By allowing unions to control state capitals, we are sure that state capitals will go broke. There's not a lot of spine in state government.
Unions have combined with state legislatures to produce Illinois New York Rhode Island and others. The states, effectively, are broke. The corruption between the unions and state government is so obvious it brings nothing but pain to think about it.
2
Difficult to not weigh in on this, except to say to the backbone of America, it's people, that if we allow corporate America, and their government lackeys, any quarter, in this war to destroy our unions, we deserve what the end game will be, which is deteriorating working conditions across the board, including longer hours, less pay, lesser medical benefits, fewer holidays, passage of the TPP, more massive outsourcing, in other words, a return to the economic slavery of almost 100 years ago.
Believe me, there is a battle being fought, with the .01%ters in possession of economic weapons of mass destruction, fully in control of Congress, in control of the Supreme Court, and now fighting hard to place their latest representative, Hillary, at the helm, keeping up the pretense that Trump is who we should worry about.
Do not be fooled; vote in Mr. Sanders if you believe our nation is worth saving.
Believe me, there is a battle being fought, with the .01%ters in possession of economic weapons of mass destruction, fully in control of Congress, in control of the Supreme Court, and now fighting hard to place their latest representative, Hillary, at the helm, keeping up the pretense that Trump is who we should worry about.
Do not be fooled; vote in Mr. Sanders if you believe our nation is worth saving.
8
Of course the right-wing hates unions. Union workers are the only ones whose pay hasn't stagnated for 30 years. That doesn't please their paymasters one bit!
10
Just one case among many that Scalia won't be around for. Thank God he's dead. Had he been dead when the Supreme Court was deciding challenges to the 1965 Voting Right Act the people in Arizona wouldn't have had to wait 5 hours to vote in the recent primary.
12
"Thank God he's dead."
I love when the left engages in character assassination and celebrates the death of those with whom they disagree. But it's the conservatives who are the haters, right?
I love when the left engages in character assassination and celebrates the death of those with whom they disagree. But it's the conservatives who are the haters, right?
6
Proof positive that the left can be as closed-minded as the right.
2
It would be impossible to assassinate Scalia's character; he had none. He left his country with a decision, Citizens United, which gave corporations the status of individual citizens. Now a faceless, corporate cohort whose CEO often earns 600% more than the employees whose jobs he controls is just a regular guy. The CEO can choose to move the whole thing off shore, pay no taxes to the U.S., and displace thousands of workers. That happened when our manufacturing base was moved to China. Scalia died on a hunting preserve owned by a very rich man. Scalia did not leave a legacy of hope for working Americans; he left them marooned on a barren rock strewn island of the unemployed. Congress will have to pass legislation to remove this specious legal fraud. The current Congress is gerrymandered in until the next census in 2020; their donors are not "regular guys", and neither are the millionaire members of Congress.
Teachers Unions are made up of mostly women.....The women on the Supreme Court came through!
4
I never had a problem with the union, but I rarely had a union to be proud of.
From Hoffa to my useless teacher's union, I watched a lot of good people fall for that crust of bread crowd. Do we forget the way the Teamsters switched horses and rode Nixon into office with shady money after Kennedy made Hoffa out to be a crook's best friend? Just angry because the Team used to hit for the Dems but they had the nerve to turn on them.
Sure, the union on behalf of the organized crooks will guarantee the operators a ten year contract IF they get to skim the healthcare contracts...the difference will be made up in increased union dues, suckers.
Remember Colson telling Nixon he knew who had the cleanest money to pay off the Plumbers? The Teamsters. Never could get rid of their corruption problems, because it's politics as per usual.
From Hoffa to my useless teacher's union, I watched a lot of good people fall for that crust of bread crowd. Do we forget the way the Teamsters switched horses and rode Nixon into office with shady money after Kennedy made Hoffa out to be a crook's best friend? Just angry because the Team used to hit for the Dems but they had the nerve to turn on them.
Sure, the union on behalf of the organized crooks will guarantee the operators a ten year contract IF they get to skim the healthcare contracts...the difference will be made up in increased union dues, suckers.
Remember Colson telling Nixon he knew who had the cleanest money to pay off the Plumbers? The Teamsters. Never could get rid of their corruption problems, because it's politics as per usual.
2
4-4.....the new norm for the highest court? Democracy is on hold while the GOP fails to at least start the approval process for a most qualified nominee...........what an embarrassment!
5
Why not have an arbitrator estimate how much was gained through union negotiations, and give people the option of not paying union dues as long as they accept the correspondingly reduced pay and benefits? Then we'll see how many people are as zealous as the folks at the Center for Very Wealthy Individual Rights or the Competitive Through Penury Enterprise Institute seem to be about the "freedom to choose whether or not to pay for union representation."
10
If people are not happy with their union representation, they can get another job!
Isn't that what right-wing extremists always say when the topic is anything but unions? Discriminated against at work? You're free to get another job. Your employer won't cover your birth control? You're free to get another job. Your employer forces you to work too many hours for too little pay? You're free to get another job. No need for anti-discrimination laws, child labor laws, or minimum-wage laws. Well, there is no need for anti-union laws, either!
Isn't that what right-wing extremists always say when the topic is anything but unions? Discriminated against at work? You're free to get another job. Your employer won't cover your birth control? You're free to get another job. Your employer forces you to work too many hours for too little pay? You're free to get another job. No need for anti-discrimination laws, child labor laws, or minimum-wage laws. Well, there is no need for anti-union laws, either!
7
It's very, very simple.
The Supreme Court tells those who don't want to pay union dues that they are no longer part of the union-negotiated benefit package. As non-paying teachers, and conservatives, they surely understand the value of personal responsibility and paying one's way. They wouldn't want to be moochers and freeloaders, would they?
So they are forthwith stripped of any future improvements to their health benefits, their retirement, their working conditions, and so on, that the union might negotiate.
Instead, as personally responsible conservatives, they must negotiate their own individual deals with management as best they can.
Then let's see the exodus from the union.
That is all the conservative bloc on SCOTUS had to do to show they were true to their principles. But, of course, this assumes they have any principles to begin with.
The Supreme Court tells those who don't want to pay union dues that they are no longer part of the union-negotiated benefit package. As non-paying teachers, and conservatives, they surely understand the value of personal responsibility and paying one's way. They wouldn't want to be moochers and freeloaders, would they?
So they are forthwith stripped of any future improvements to their health benefits, their retirement, their working conditions, and so on, that the union might negotiate.
Instead, as personally responsible conservatives, they must negotiate their own individual deals with management as best they can.
Then let's see the exodus from the union.
That is all the conservative bloc on SCOTUS had to do to show they were true to their principles. But, of course, this assumes they have any principles to begin with.
15
Scalia was SCOTUS' own version of Ameila Bedelia, the wonderful story book character whose concrete mind-set led to mishaps like a 'sponge cake' made of sponges. We needn't pretend that the late judge was an 'original intent' judge, because reading the letters and musings of the writers of the Constitution shows they intended it to evolve. Scalia, like Amelia, was an 'original word' individual.
Happy not to have him included in this vote. His decision, like the cake, would have been difficult to swallow.
Happy not to have him included in this vote. His decision, like the cake, would have been difficult to swallow.
17
Union leaders are democratically elected thus members have the representatives that they think will do the what is best for the members, so many forget their right and responsibility to vote, seems to happen on all echelons.
5
It took Scalia's death to lead to the freeloaders losing. It's not a welcome chain of events, but no one is going to throw this workers' victory away. This is the first a more than a few decisions that Republican anti-constitutionalists will guarantee by failing to act on the President's nomination.
6
It's a whole different bench when you take out the henchman. What a difference a field day makes. Think twice before you call that moderate candidate out, Congress.
8
Maybe we just leave the Court at 4-4 and see what happens.
9
It won't be good for the REPUBLICANS
3
Right? Wait for another death or resignation and leave the court at 7.
1
Deadlocks have been the trademark of the Republican Party for the past 8 years. What goes around comes around.
7
Theft by deception by unions so union workers on the East Coast (most expensive) have to pay $1,000 a month plus. What a waste of money. And these "unions" are not suppose to be political but they are democrat as we know so cities can continue to go bankrupt as they cannot afford to pay for the "overly compensated" union workers.
3
They are supposed to protect workers rights, so yeah they have to be political a lot of the time. The thing is that the other side, ie employers, also have the right to bargain. It's what used to make sure that the employers didn't just fire someone who wanted a raise and bring in some one more desperate to take their jobs for lower wages. You know, like Republicans who don't want immigrants, illegal or otherwise, to come in to take their jobs.
3
1000 a month plus - really
1
Thanks Mitch, lets keep that seat open because a lot more our going to go our way on the 4-4 split! Brilliant plan!
3
Ok.. Soooo… now Unions will continue to have the right to remove money from your paycheck even if you wish not to participate in the benefits they extort from companies and government agencies.. These unions should just call themselves the IRS …. It’s the same process.. If someone does not want to join a Union..they should not have to . On that same note, workers who oppose the unions should not receive the same compensation that has been “ Negotiated “ by the Unions. it seems only fair..
1
Then they should get another job and not expect to FREELOAD off the benefits of paying union members
4
And that's actually the question being addressed here. If unions negotiate better wages, etc. should people who don't want to be in the union get tye same wages? Unions actually don't want that to happen as it shows workers why they need a union. Court decisions in the past have said that the non-union workers must get those wages and benefits.
4
"It was the starkest illustration yet of how the sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia last month has blocked the power of the court’s four remaining conservatives to move the law to the right."
What was also "starkly" illustrated was the power of the four liberals to keep the law on the left.
What was also "starkly" illustrated was the power of the four liberals to keep the law on the left.
4
My grandfather said unions would be the death of America, I think he's right.
5
Actually, it is the death of Justice Scalia that means life for unions.
5
Thank you for that scintillating analysis.
8
Maybe you should have worked for the 1% back when unions were first starting. It'd be quite an awakening.
3
Agency and the payment of a fair share of the costs of negotiating in most cases benefits everyone in the union. You don’t get 100% in most negotiations.
Why is it that there is always a conservative and often GOP group that does not want to do its fair share and is ready to shout out its collected offenses by the other party?
Why is it that there is always a conservative and often GOP group that does not want to do its fair share and is ready to shout out its collected offenses by the other party?
6
If the Supreme Court were to allow employees to freeload on union representation, wouldn't it be fair then for unions to negotiate another form of two-tier contract: no raises for freeloaders, and more salaray and benefits for union members? Under such circumstances, the whole freeloader problem would go away quickly. Unions already have negotiated two-tier contracts, treating newer employees less generously than established ones.
7
Let's face it, union leaders with few exceptions are out for their own money and power. The teacher's union does not fight for the children who teachers are hired to serve. Not that teachers do not deserve more and more, but think of it this way, every dollar that teachers get is at least taken from being spent another way for the children's education. And the unions make it impossible to reward the best teachers and get rid of the bad ones, and the minority (though a big number) who undermine morality, progress, excellence and bring the whole system down. However, even if teachers and other people in unionized professions feel that the bad apples are getting too good a deal, this ruling says too bad, all teachers, great or bad, are treated equally as just another union member.
5
"Let's face it, union leaders with few exceptions are out for their own money and power."
Care to provide a source supporting this statement?
Care to provide a source supporting this statement?
4
Why is it that so many people feel that teachers are out for themselves? I invite any person who has not spent time teaching children to spend a week in a school. Everyone has challenges in their jobs, however, most of what teachers do to help children is not apparent to people outside of education. Please respect teachers and understand the important role they play in the lives of young people.
8
The teachers union is not supposed to w3ork for the children's benefit. The union is supposed to make sure that its members are paid and treated fairly by the education system. And it's not the responsibility of the unions to get rid of or keep bad teachers. That's managements responsibility. It they can't manage a good enough case for firing someone, then maybe the just want to fire those who make the most money. Not very fair.
5
This decision is a prime example why Repubs have to not hold hearings until after the election.This decision is liberal gaga land ridiculous.How 4 justices including Obama's 2 appointees could rule in favor of unions is beyond belief.Using their flawed logic,you could argue it's legal to withhold fees for any purpose where someone in an organization claims to have successfully won a "right" for other workers.Unions at one time truly helped workers.Today's unions which are mostly public unions do little to nothing for their members.We can thank JFK for approving public unions in the fed sector.And I challenge anyone to tell us what a California Teachers Union does to help their members.
2
You're from Texas, you say? How do you know so much about Californian Unions?
5
The reason most unions are now public, is because of the union busting activities of Republicans for the last hundred years.And they didn't do it to protect anyone's rights. They did it to protect their own profits. That's why they outsource jobs now. So that they can pay even less than nothing in poor countries. Don't we teach history anymore? Or did the right wing cut that out of textbooks along with evolution?
8
Unions should make all of our decisions for us. We are not worthy nor capable to think on our own.
4
You probably are not powerful enough to guarantee your own safe working environment, fair wages, or benefits from management. March 25 was the anniversary of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire. The day is remembered in Italy every year. Many of the 146 women killed, many more horribly burned, were if Italian and Jewish descent. Locked in a building considered a model of work environments in 1911. The owners were acquitted after a 2 hr. deliberation. The ILGWU - International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union lobbied for years for better conditions. Did you know that Nike moved its factories to non-union S.E. Asian countries? Remember the 1,130 women in Bangladesh who died in the 2013 factory fire making clothes for Walmart, Benneton and other famous brands. The Chinese workers who commit suicide working in 'factory dormitories' to churn out Apple products?
11
Well, if you insist...why do you work for anyone who needs schooling constantly? I won't work for any organized anything anymore. I'm sick of getting rolled by security.
Congress provides a shining example of leaders who, once elected, focus on self-service, disregarding those it claims to represent.m
10
Here's who Friedrich's little crusade was backed by. i'll give ua three guessea, but you're only gonna need the one.
http://prospect.org/article/whos-behind-friedrichs
I'm also gonna tell you that she's a tad bit of a liar.
First, nobody's required to pay a union a dime. Even if you pay agency fee, you can donate the money to a designated charity.
Second, I checked the Buena Vista contract. Her school doesn't even HAVE an agency fee requirement: it would have had to be voted on by the membership and then bargained, and if it's in their contract, I can't find it.
Ordinarily it's be in one of the first two sections, most often under the title, "Association Rights." Not there, and not in the Appendixes either.
http://prospect.org/article/whos-behind-friedrichs
I'm also gonna tell you that she's a tad bit of a liar.
First, nobody's required to pay a union a dime. Even if you pay agency fee, you can donate the money to a designated charity.
Second, I checked the Buena Vista contract. Her school doesn't even HAVE an agency fee requirement: it would have had to be voted on by the membership and then bargained, and if it's in their contract, I can't find it.
Ordinarily it's be in one of the first two sections, most often under the title, "Association Rights." Not there, and not in the Appendixes either.
10
This is the second ominous sign of the Republican party's end, the first being a Trump takeover of their base. Then they will lose the Senate, the House, and of course the Presidency. I've seen pets, plants, and people pass away, but never a party. I doubt anyone will even show up for the funeral.
12
Just as I thought: this case was brought by the Koch Bros donor network. If it's bad for workers, bad for the environment, and bad for minorities, and great for the 0.1%, it's almost always from these people.
The Center for Individual Right's primary funders are the Bradley Foundation, the Olin foundation, the Scaife Foundation, the Donors Trust (should be called the Kochs Donors Trust, as that is in effect what it is), and the Carthage Foundation.
Without exception, these are all foundations set up by members of the Koch Donor network to try to swing the US government to an extremist right-wing, completely pro 1% corporate agenda.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Center_for_Individual_Rights
Scalia was their SCOTUS hero, and this case clearly shows why they should not be allowed to have an influence in choosing the his replacement.
The Center for Individual Right's primary funders are the Bradley Foundation, the Olin foundation, the Scaife Foundation, the Donors Trust (should be called the Kochs Donors Trust, as that is in effect what it is), and the Carthage Foundation.
Without exception, these are all foundations set up by members of the Koch Donor network to try to swing the US government to an extremist right-wing, completely pro 1% corporate agenda.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Center_for_Individual_Rights
Scalia was their SCOTUS hero, and this case clearly shows why they should not be allowed to have an influence in choosing the his replacement.
20
How predictable. As others have intimated here, how 'bout we return the court to its rightful position of checks and balances on the other two political branches? Scalia's death is a good start. So is the nomination of Merrick Garland. Now, let's find a way to remove every other member except Kennedy and Roberts, and start over.
2
Sorry--Roberts and Kennedy BOTH voted in the majority on Citizens United; Hobby Lobby; and the gutting of the VRA. Roberts voted against Obergefell (sorry if I spelled that wrong!); and Kennedy voted in the majority in Bush v. Gore.
So--no--Roberts and Kennedy go, too.
So--no--Roberts and Kennedy go, too.
1
I was a member of the American Postal Workers Union. All they ever did was rape my paycheck for their union dues. Aside from that, the temporary employees had absolutely no rights, no benefits and no protection. The unions are often times a legal means of racketeering. It is a well-known secret that many NYC unions have strong ties and affiliations with the mafia. Who pays for these nefarious unions? We, the consumers, pay.
5
Well, don't worry about APWU workers' getting too rich. When they go to arbitration for new contracts, there's a little law, S. 1507, which the GOP passed in 2009 that says the arbitrator must take into consideration the 'financial health' of the entire postal service when deciding union contracts. Two democrats in name only, Lieberman and Carper, broke ranks and joined to pass the law. Unless the service is rolling in profit, benefits aren't going to increase.
Another union busted!!!
Another union busted!!!
3
Yeah, those stamps are getting expensive
This case highlights the reality that the so-called conservative justices are actually reactionaries, looking to turn the clock back in radical ways. The 1977 case that Mr. Scalia and his henchjustices were prepared to overrule was just one of many cases in which the 5-4 majority has repeatedly upended settled law in recent years. Sometimes, as in this case, they virtually invited ideological organizations to bring lawsuits so that they would have the opportunity to re-write the Court's precedents. Mr. Scalia was an ardent practitioner of this collusion with right-wing groups, and his absence should diminish the likelihood of such corrupt judicial behavior.
Supreme Court justices are frequently identified as "conservative" or "liberal", but these terms really miss the mark much of the time. In this case, the justices sustaining prior precedent are the conservatives, and those who would overturn it are reactionary activists. It would be helpful for the news media to develop more accurate ways of describing the Court's two wings.
I look forward to someday reading in the Times a detailed report on all the settled law that the 5-4 majority has overturned, including of course Citizens United and Shelby County v Holder. It would help people understand how essential it is for the Court to do what Mitch McConnell fears, and move away from the last decades of disruptive activism to return to a sober and judicious approach to the performance of its duties.
Supreme Court justices are frequently identified as "conservative" or "liberal", but these terms really miss the mark much of the time. In this case, the justices sustaining prior precedent are the conservatives, and those who would overturn it are reactionary activists. It would be helpful for the news media to develop more accurate ways of describing the Court's two wings.
I look forward to someday reading in the Times a detailed report on all the settled law that the 5-4 majority has overturned, including of course Citizens United and Shelby County v Holder. It would help people understand how essential it is for the Court to do what Mitch McConnell fears, and move away from the last decades of disruptive activism to return to a sober and judicious approach to the performance of its duties.
162
Elliot, I just learned more from your comment than any article I've recently read about the SC.
Thank you.
Thank you.
3
Yup, this is gonna be a spectacular decade. A slow and bumpy ride arcing toward Justice.
The day that happens is the day America has its last best days.
There's a simple answer, but it's not one the unions will appreciate.
Let those employees that don't want union representation work without a union contract for wages & benefits.
Let each non-union employee negotiate on their own. The only wage floor is the minimum wage, the sky's the limit for wage hikes.
My guess is that it will cause the union's short term pain, but in the end be a long term gain as non-union employees balk at making less than the person working next to them.
When enough non-union employees see the benefits of membership, they'll start paying their dues with a smile on their face.
Let those employees that don't want union representation work without a union contract for wages & benefits.
Let each non-union employee negotiate on their own. The only wage floor is the minimum wage, the sky's the limit for wage hikes.
My guess is that it will cause the union's short term pain, but in the end be a long term gain as non-union employees balk at making less than the person working next to them.
When enough non-union employees see the benefits of membership, they'll start paying their dues with a smile on their face.
4
My union was already conceding second tier conditions for the new entrants. Who needs a union when it rolls you for the employer?
2
Actually I think the Unions would like this just fine.
1
McConnell's Republicans are holding the Supreme Court as a political hostage; and the remaining justices will find ways to communicate their displeasure with the tactic. Laying low the biggest legal challenge to unions in decades was a nice start.
7
I have a solution:
Since we all benefit from the work of labor unions perhaps we should all pay a small stipend to maintain them.
No?
okay, ready to give up your holiday pay, your sick leave, your vacation and see your salary drop... significantly?
Without labor unions you would have none of them. Even those of us who don't belong benefit from the high water mark they set.
Or we could just let the Federal Government handle it in an equitable way like they do in the rest of the industrialized world.
Since we all benefit from the work of labor unions perhaps we should all pay a small stipend to maintain them.
No?
okay, ready to give up your holiday pay, your sick leave, your vacation and see your salary drop... significantly?
Without labor unions you would have none of them. Even those of us who don't belong benefit from the high water mark they set.
Or we could just let the Federal Government handle it in an equitable way like they do in the rest of the industrialized world.
7
The lower appellate courts have become the final arbiter, all because Republicans prefer to hobble the Supreme Court than play fair with the opposing political party.
Republican intransigence is dangerous and begs the question: What's next?
Republican intransigence is dangerous and begs the question: What's next?
6
The Competitive Enterprise Institute spokesperson says "thousands of public servants around the nation must still financially assist a government union that they disagree with." So thousands of public servants are opposed to workplace safeguards and wage stability, and would rather be subject to mandatory overtime, arbitrary layoffs, and take whatever benefits the government sees fit to give them, with no recourse whatsoever? If these folks exist, they must be the same people who vote for GOP candidates who want to cut Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment benefits, and impose regressive taxes on working people.
7
I'm a bit torn about the decision to be honest. I'm a caregiver from California, through the In Home Support Services system. Our union (SEIU) is TERRIBLE. They've had leaders who stole and squandered money, most counties are still at or near minimum wage, and many don't have health care. I finally got a health plan (for me only, no dependents eligible, no vision, no dental) after three YEARS on a waiting list. No 401k, no vacation, no sick time...yes I finally quit the union. Sorry, but I needed the almost $40 a month more than they did. The irony is that in general I am pro union, but there needs to be SOME way that corrupt and ineffective unions are held responsible...and I don't want my hard-earned money going to support a group that does nothing for me and could care less about my interests.
7
Thank you Sen. McConnell and your band of rebellious Republicans. This is a rare victory for unions that are absolutely essential to a functioning democracy that has seen corporate rights trampling all others. We are totally out of balance as a society and unions are the only effective collective way for workers to gain the benefits of their increased productivity that has been going to shareholders and CEOs since the "Reagan revolution" and the birth of the modern anti-union movement that began with dissolving the air traffic controllers union in 1981. As a retired college professor who gladly paid his union dues and received excellent health, salary and pension benefits, I'm thrilled to see this victory. I hope the Democrats will soon wake up and make revitalizing the union movement a central part of their campaign. It's the single best way to deal with income inequality.
3
Historians, economists and sociologists will point to the period from 1945 to 1980 as being the high water mark of the American middle and working classes as well as being an aberration in America's social and economic history.
It is conservative antipathy towards the socializing of the working class that is killing it. Beginning with the 1890's corporate attacks on workers, often aided by government's use of police, national guards and regular military forces, this enmity continued with the opposition to the relief programs of the New Deal through the cachet given union busting by Ronald Reagan to the job killing of NAFTA ( yes, I know: Bill Clinton. In no way was Clinton a progressive).
Conservatives have been squeezing the working class economically as well as exploiting its fears and hopes socially while all the while giving the banker/coupon-cutting classes carte blanche.
It is conservative antipathy towards the socializing of the working class that is killing it. Beginning with the 1890's corporate attacks on workers, often aided by government's use of police, national guards and regular military forces, this enmity continued with the opposition to the relief programs of the New Deal through the cachet given union busting by Ronald Reagan to the job killing of NAFTA ( yes, I know: Bill Clinton. In no way was Clinton a progressive).
Conservatives have been squeezing the working class economically as well as exploiting its fears and hopes socially while all the while giving the banker/coupon-cutting classes carte blanche.
6
These cases are being brought by front groups financed by dark money libertarians like the Kochs and their friends. They really aren't in favor of individual rights for individual workers, but want to get rid of workers' rights and lose benefits, that can only be countered and protected by organized groups. i.e. unions.
They shop for a front organization to bring the case, like they did here, then solicit plaintiffs. Then they commence the action, and limit the record in the trial court below, so that all of the facts can't be considered and argued at the appellate level. This gives the Supreme Court the room to impose its own, non fact based decisions, with insufficient facts from the lower courts, which would have will end workers rights and protections.
This way big biz, hiding behind its hidden tax status, can reduce its expenses by decreasing wages and benefits, and make more profit. They threaten American workers to accept less wages and benefits, or they will off-shore the work to low wage developing countries, like Mexico and Vietnam. This makes the .001% big biz owners richer, and the rest of us poorer, and multiplies the inequality that has been hurting the rest of us for the last 40 years.
Scalia's death bought the 99+% a 4-4 tie bye, for the moment...at least until the next Supreme Court Justice is anointed by these big biz boys, and voted in by their bought up Senate beneficiaries. This is not about individual freedom. It is only about their money.
They shop for a front organization to bring the case, like they did here, then solicit plaintiffs. Then they commence the action, and limit the record in the trial court below, so that all of the facts can't be considered and argued at the appellate level. This gives the Supreme Court the room to impose its own, non fact based decisions, with insufficient facts from the lower courts, which would have will end workers rights and protections.
This way big biz, hiding behind its hidden tax status, can reduce its expenses by decreasing wages and benefits, and make more profit. They threaten American workers to accept less wages and benefits, or they will off-shore the work to low wage developing countries, like Mexico and Vietnam. This makes the .001% big biz owners richer, and the rest of us poorer, and multiplies the inequality that has been hurting the rest of us for the last 40 years.
Scalia's death bought the 99+% a 4-4 tie bye, for the moment...at least until the next Supreme Court Justice is anointed by these big biz boys, and voted in by their bought up Senate beneficiaries. This is not about individual freedom. It is only about their money.
8
Excellent summary of the situation but I just want to make sure I am understanding this....when SCOTUS reviews a case, full transcripts of the case from the lower court are not available? Just the parts that are favorable to the plaintiff(s)? Is that ethical? On second thought, why would anyone be surprised?
1
I have practiced as an appellate attorney. The attorneys file written arguments in the form of briefs. They also file appendices which are the portions of the record cited in the briefs. The full record is available for the Justices to review as well.
1
Interestingly, these plaintiffs are pawns for the lynne and Harry Bradley Foundation The foundation spends millions to undermine hard working class employees whose only protection are the unions. It is estimated this foundation has $800 million dollars endowed. Maybe the Foundation should find something better to do with their money.
11
Pawns? How so? these are persons with graduate degrees who knew exactly what they were doing and in what context. They wanted a free ride at their colleagues' expense. Wouldn't want to be in their shoes tomorrow at school.
1
Like if they had paid a fair share of taxes , less cash to fling around buying elections ,politicians, votes, on and on the list goes.
1
With Justice Scalia's death leaving an open seat in the Supreme Court, there needs to be a temporary justice so decisions such as this one do not go unsolved. One way or another, the law needs reform. This being the second 4-4 vote since Justice Scalia's death, and a new Senate potentially allowing for the approval of a new justice to be delayed, we cannot afford to have votes that leave necessary reforms unchanged. I hope the Senate is not able to delay the approval of a new justice as they have recently threatened.
When the House and Senate both oppose the President, nothing, save the shame of Senators violating their oath, stops even the next Senate from refusing to consent to a SCOTUS appointment from the next President. McConnell could easily say "We want to wait until the people have a chance to speak, again, because they didn't made the right choice in 2016 when they voted Bernie for President." Without a vote in the House, Impeachment of Senators would be impossible.
1
No such thing as a temporary justice. They wouldn't confirm anyone Obama nominated anyway.
Conservatives are just "takers": they want the benefits of contract bargaining and negotiations but don't want to pay for their monetary gains. Congratulations to the "makers," the hard-working unions and their bargaining teams who get workers better salaries and benefits!
14
We should remember that both President Roosevelt and George Meany both thought that public unions should not be allowed. In their minds, private unions were to make sure that corporate profits were shared with the workers. Governments make no profits. Hence, public unions must take their pay and benefits from taxpayers. And the taxpayers do not have much choice in the matter as governments are monopolies unlike most corporations.
Across the board we need to renew opportunity for the middleclass. Giving public sector employees an advantage that most taxpayers can't have is probably not the best way to go about it. I am sympathetic with them, in the 50's public sector employees earned less. Now they earn more and have better benefits. On balance, we need better ways to reverse the decline in middle class outcomes.
Across the board we need to renew opportunity for the middleclass. Giving public sector employees an advantage that most taxpayers can't have is probably not the best way to go about it. I am sympathetic with them, in the 50's public sector employees earned less. Now they earn more and have better benefits. On balance, we need better ways to reverse the decline in middle class outcomes.
5
They still earn less, compared to private sector people with comparable educations and responsibilities.
And by the way, stop yelling about deficits, since government doesn't haveta turn a profit.
And by the way, stop yelling about deficits, since government doesn't haveta turn a profit.
5
It isn't for the president to decide whether we, the citizens, should have unions or not. Our presidents and representatives are nothing more than our public SERVANTS, hired to work FOR us, and easily dismissed after two or four years if they don't work out.
It is for citizens to decide by democratic vote whether they shall have unions or not. Majority wins. For better and for worse, that's how "democracy" wins.
It is for citizens to decide by democratic vote whether they shall have unions or not. Majority wins. For better and for worse, that's how "democracy" wins.
3
So then, by Pell's logic, I should not have to pay for any of my representatives in government either.
5
Because unions are now part of the government, and have the power to levy taxes?
1
I have worked in a communist country, where the trade unions were called "the transmission belt" between the Communist Party and the workers. Membership - and dues - were absolutely mandatory, as you would think. Imagine my surprise, when I came to "the land of the free", to discover that here it's the same ! What communist planet are these people coming from ?
5
This one's called "Earth." On it, it is illegal to require union membership--especially in Texas.
And if you think that CTA and this Admin work hand in glove, boy, do YOU not get out much.
And if you think that CTA and this Admin work hand in glove, boy, do YOU not get out much.
2
I am old. The AARP claims to represent my interests. I have not chosen to become a member. Under the logic of this decision, they should be able to send me a bill anyway.
I sometimes write to the Times advocating a better system for managing comments. For this service, I will henceforth require all commenters to send me a check. No more free riders!
I sometimes write to the Times advocating a better system for managing comments. For this service, I will henceforth require all commenters to send me a check. No more free riders!
6
Aarp does not bargain for anything on your behalf, you do not bargain on the behalf of the times readers either, expressing your ideas is not bargaining, there is no contract that you will ever sign
1
Your argument would earn a solid "F" in a Logic 101 class. You are comparing apples and chickens.
5
Fatuous comparison of AARP and unions. The AARP is more like an affinity group than a union. But hey, if you want to believe unions haven't done, and don't do, any good for their workers, go right ahead.
5
We would have had a DECISION if there was that 9th Justice. I think the Supreme Court needs to be in recess until that 9th Justice is in place and the decisions of the appellate courts should be the law of the land for as long as the Supreme court is in this state.
2
Justice delayed is justice denied, we could also change the law to have 20 justices at the Supreme Court, that way will make it harder for ideologues to game the system
I think it is time to take the court nominations as well as the congressional redistricting function out of the hands of the politicians. Issues of grave importance should not be decided based on the the whim of who happens to be in power when a vacancy occurs, nor should they be held hostage by rigged congressional districts established by self serving neanderthals. It will take a constitutional amendment(s) but can we have some adults in the room PLEASE who will do what's right for the country?
3
"Who happens to be in power" happens to have been elected by a democratic majority of many more "neanderthals".
1
Unions are important but if you disagree with what they are saying then you shouldn't have to pay for them. If you agree with them. You will be compelled to support them. You don't agree with them and you shouldn't have to support them.
3
Then they shouldn't be compelled to negotiate a raise for you either.
4
You can do that individually with your employer, or if it is something your union supports you can pay that union but if you feel the union is threatening your job by demanding too high a wage, you shouldn't have to pay them to do it.
I hope cases like these make it abundantly clear to everyone that the judiciary is just as political as any other branch, and, that since the members of the federal judiciary are chosen by elected representatives, that it is absolutely vital to vote in November. It is easy to become cynical about the political process (in fact, I'd argue that making everyone cynical about politics is an unstated objective of our 24/7 news media), but elections do have consequences, and it really is in everyone's best interest to vote when they can.
5
I do trust teachers. The unions, not so much.
2
Do you really want a situation where every time the school board changes, the teachers should loose their jobs?
6
Liberals on the court protecting the unions, A.K.A. the fundraising arm of the Democrat Party. Pretending the Supreme Court is anything but a political action committee is, at this point, ridiculous. So is all the moral posturing from the Democrats about filling that empty seat. It is all politics, and you know we all know it.
2
Citizens United caused a major party to disintegrate, cause the big money that runs it's Washington operation has allowed it to get disconnected from its actual voters. The clown might loose the nomination but the voters will vote with their feet
2
Protecting the unions??? This was clearly a Political move by the Republicans to weaken unions and collective bargaining. They rushed this case through the lower courts, in fact requesting the lower courts to rule against them quickly so they could move this to the Supreme Court. Their hope was to get a Republican leaning Supreme Court to forever diminish the ability of the working class people, that built, and continue to build this country, to bargain collectively. Your comparison to Communism is way far reaching, but expected from Conservatives.
8
I think this is finally going to start backfiring on congress and only declares how pathetically terrible they are. I'm praying for the day that McConnell chokes on his dinner or croaks; both are have considerable chances at his age.
3
If you don't want to pay union dues would that mean you don't expect the pay and benefits that union members receive as a result of negotiations? The real question all union members should ask is your Union negotiated pay at least $1 more than your union dues. If yes, paying Union makes sense
5
I opted not to join my (state) union, and pay fair share fees only. It seems only fair! After all, I do want my union to continue bargaining on my behalf. It also is nice to have an ally, if I end up on the wrong end of a corrupt manager (it happens).
The libertarian group that adopted this case has pernicious motives. As if this country's workers haven't lost enough, they want to drag down public employees.
Frankly I would support a law that required ALL employers to provide a modest pension for its workers. Fund it with part of the CEO salaries.
The libertarian group that adopted this case has pernicious motives. As if this country's workers haven't lost enough, they want to drag down public employees.
Frankly I would support a law that required ALL employers to provide a modest pension for its workers. Fund it with part of the CEO salaries.
6
Teachers and Unions win. Children and taxpayers lose again.
1
Did I miss a study that indicates children specifically learn better from underpaid teachers?
6
Where is the "informed" portion of your opinion?
3
How about the people who don't like the union be paid with 1900 style wages and benefits? That's where we'd all be without unions.
4
I read this article and of course the comments. Most readers who comment are pleased with the decision and allude to the fact that Antonin Scalia was a "Scourge on the SCOTUS." And I agree. But at the same time I wonder how the Scalia children feel about their father and his legacy? I would hope that my kids believe that I left the world a better place as I do think that my late father did. Did Scalia leave the world a better place? And I wonder how Jenna and Barbara Bush feel about their father? Scalia may have tarnished America for a generation, but George Bush? Wow, it is the entire world that will be suffering for a generation. Does love trump ideology?
5
In a word: usually.
1
You simply can't imagine how someone could hold beliefs different from your own; how narrow-minded. Roughly half the population thinks Scalia was an excellent justice. I guess they are all wrong, and you are right.
3
You shouldn't blame children for the sins of their parents.
2
Hope Mitch McConnell and his fellow Republicans wake up to the fact this 4-4 split is going to happen in all the important pending cases. Their stand is not helping them achieve anything except putting a spanner in the works. This blanket denial to even acknowledge President Obama's Nominee, Judge Garland ,shows the futility of their ways. They are just obstructing for the sale of obstruction, preventing President Obama from doing his Constitutional Duty. Are the Republicans committing treason? I think so.
16
Doesn't the vote of the Chief Justice count double in case of parity?
Not in an election year. The People, bless their ponty little heads, would riot.
1
You're kidding, right?
4
I am beginning to believe that I LIKE a 4 -4 SCOTUS. Why don't we just forget having an unbalanced Court. It could be good for us and the Country........
10
A split holds no precedent, and keeps the issue as unsettled law.
4
I advocate having 30 people on the court, diversity of opinion helps and will make it harder for anyone to game the ideology business
1
Not sure precedent mattered to the conservative wing anyways...
1
I hope that young people realize that collective bargaining and union membership are the reasons that wages and working conditions improve. Bernie Sanders can make all the pie-in-the-sky proposals that might appeal to young people, but true progress can only be made from the bottom up, by organizing.
32
No points for guessing how the four hard-left politicians on the SCOTUS voted.
Curious, isn't it? To the left, the 1A protects nude dancing, but not the right to speak on matters of politics or the right to be free from coerced speech through the involuntary organization you're dragooned into joining when you have temerity to want to serve children.
The sooner we go to vouchers, the better.
Curious, isn't it? To the left, the 1A protects nude dancing, but not the right to speak on matters of politics or the right to be free from coerced speech through the involuntary organization you're dragooned into joining when you have temerity to want to serve children.
The sooner we go to vouchers, the better.
3
And we don't have to guess how the four hard-right justices voted, do we? By the way, none of the justices are "politicians", as you wrote.
3
It's actually illegal to require union membership, sparky, but thanks for playing.
http://www.nrtw.org/a/a_1_p.htm
http://www.nrtw.org/a/a_1_p.htm
4
The senior republican "leadership" are largely comprised of not-too-bright individuals who seem to be drinking Trump Kool-aid. Their knee-jerk strategy of fueling the extreme right racist agenda of blocking and obstructing the appointment of a SCOUS justice has, and will continue to back-fire. They created this situation - now, unfortunately the rest of society will be paying the price. The political landscape that has been created by them and the rest of the far-right media maniacs will cost them the Presidency, and the Senate - and possibly the House of Representatives. But, of course to their way of thinking, this will be due to a conspiracy that is funded by Islamic radicals that are seeking to impose Sharia law inside the U.S. Which, of course, will seek to send UN troops to your home to take away your guns. (If you are perfect, and never wrong, you have to find a scapegoat or two to blame - right?)
3
There is an almost perfect correlation between the decrease in union membership and the decline in the middle class share of the national income. Yet workers still support union busting Republicans. Unions support the union-busting Trump!
14
Once you make the distinction between public and private sector unions, the case at had, your argument falls apart.
2
Justice Scalia's death marks the end of a conservative era. And like it or not the Republican majority in the Senate will come kicking and screaming to that realization one way or another. The 4 to 4 division is merely a brief transition to a liberal majority, and Republicans know it.
16
The systematic destruction of unions--and the benefits they bestow on workers--is one of the factors that has left wage-earning, working-class Americans behind in the dust and enraged enough to turn to the likes of Donald Trump. It probably too much to hope for a real labor turnaround, but this victory is sweet, however tenuous.
13
Have faith. This is the beginning of the end and a legion of millenials twill lead the way. It has taken two generations but we are finally seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. They are frothing at the mouth.
1
So, without Scalia nothing really changes. Justice Kennedy is still one of the most powerful people in America.
1
All this means is that in a select number of cases, the courts of appeals will effectively be the high court. And both sides will complain when it is their ox being gored.
1
It also means inconsistent federal law across the nation. Very bad for business.
3
I have been a union supporter my entire life. Unions gave my immigrant parents dignity, a decent wage, benefits allowing them to enter the middle class. And the payback - well their children went on to become doctors, professors, and lawyers. That's how to build a society.
39
If those "teachers" didn't want to be in a union or pay union fees , let them go work in a charter school which is non-union, make 18K less, worked forced unpaid overtime and are arbitrarily let go for no reason other than to avoid giving you a raise or replace you with someone cheaper.
24
Couldn't agree more. They should exercise their First Amendment rights and tell the unions they are choosing to go to non-union charter schools instead of free-loading off of those who continue to keep the unions financially afloat to fight for the higher wages and better benefits that these teachers apparently enjoy receiving since they haven't quit.
4
Now we see why Mitch McConnell et. al are delaying the confirmation hearings. They know that they had an obscene "winning run" with the Robber's court (sic) and also know that should Bernie or Hillary win, the Roberts court will have many reconsiderations of their recent and undemocratic decisions.
11
Why should people be forced to pay union dues only to make union leadership rich while American jobs continue to go abroad. Unions are not about the people on the bottom. All they do is continue to drive prices up.
Union dues are not to make anyone rich. They are there to defend workers rights to livable wages and safe work enviroment.And obviously collective bargaining is the way to achieve this.
5
AFSCME COUNCIL 31 is a good example of a union run amuck. Although i support the SCOTUS decision I still believe there is no reason to support unions which discriminate against there members and those unions (like AFSCME COUNCIL 31) which refuse to support there members. Unions need to reformed. If the unions dont support there members why should any body pay fair share fees.
As someone that has been around union members all of my life, I have yet to meet a rich union leader. By and large they make roughly the same as their membership.
7
Underscoring the importance of electing a Democrat for President in 2016!
11
I wonder if the workers behind this suit would agree with the following: I live in America, and benefit from all she has to offer, but because I don't agree with how the government spends my money, I should not have to pay one dollar in taxes. Ever.
16
There are people who in fact think that way. Look up "sovereign citizen" for some (often crazy) examples of people who try it. It usually does not turn out well.
This is a very well written article. Short, to the point and clear.
3
Will the four liberal drones on the court ever break ranks and vote against Democrat and liberal dogma? I doubt it, even though conservative judges will occasionally vote contrary to conservative ideas.
You are empirically just plain wrong. Thee are scores of published studies on this question.
You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.
You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.
6
that should tell you something- truth and justice have a liberal bias most of the time.
2
Last year, for the first time ever, I paid more than half my income in taxes and fees. I wouldn't have minded this if the roads were in great shape, public transit was good, schools were good, etc. However, that is far from the case here in California and other places. Instead, we're paying more for fewer services so public employees can retire at age 50 and receive almost their full salary and medical benefits for the next 30-40 years at taxpayer expense. This isn't sustainable and isn't good for society as a whole.
What is wrong with the union approach not only in cases such as teacher's unions, but unions that represent city, county, state workers is this; they set the pensions, healthcare, and salaries of all those above, but those paying the bills, the taxpayers have not rights, but to have their taxes raised to cover what the unions negotiate. My husband, a teacher for 30 years, when he retired, the union representing his members locally had previously negotiated a very lucrative contract of covering 80% of the cost of healthcare each year until my husband was Medicare eligible. It wasn't fair to the local taxpayer. Those working for the city paid no costs for their healthcare until I spoke, and they had to pay $25. per month which is nothing. The whole reason that jobs went overseas in the private sector is because the salaries, and benefits(healthcare and pension) were such as to raise the costs of any car, or other product to double. We have this idea that rather than have a sliding fee schedule for healthcare based on income and per person, we are going to stick it to the taxpayer, who often has not had these types of generous benefits. I am on Medicare. Part A has no premium per month, so if I was in the hospital, my costs after a very small deductible would be nothing. In other words, we need a single payer system by person. We have by indifference, greed, and stupidity put ourselves into the pit. When no one is held accountable for their health, the costs go up.
2
The US pays more per capita presently than any country does with universal nationalized health care. Seems the solution is obvious.
2
"... what the unions negotiate..."
No, what unions AND MANAGEMENT agree to.
Your beef is with management -- in the case you cite, meaning the school district.
No, what unions AND MANAGEMENT agree to.
Your beef is with management -- in the case you cite, meaning the school district.
7
Your husband was an early retiree--and, I notice, you guys had no qualms about taking the bennies, and sticking the people still working with higher costs. Nor do YOU have any probs with your Medicare bennies, bennies for which I am paying.
By the way, you need to understand Medicare better. Part B does have a premium--around $130 a month--plus deductible and co-pays and co-insurance. And then there's Part D, your rx benefits.
But one good thing: thanks to the efforts of unions and radical libs like our President, the famous donut hole in your bennies is going away.
By the way, you need to understand Medicare better. Part B does have a premium--around $130 a month--plus deductible and co-pays and co-insurance. And then there's Part D, your rx benefits.
But one good thing: thanks to the efforts of unions and radical libs like our President, the famous donut hole in your bennies is going away.
6
For the freeloaders in other states that get benefits from union negotiation, but don't want to pay dues - here is a proposal. Take the time to negotiate your own contract with your employer. Of course, you wouldn't be part of the union group, so you would be free to find your own individual insurance policy. I'm sure your employer would kick in what it kicks in for union members, but you would make up the difference from your own pocket. As individual policies are generally more expensive, of course you would be happy to pay more for health insurance for the freedom you gain. Also, this would apply for life insurance, which you could buy on an individual basis. Of course, if the insurance company doesn't want to cover you as a result of your health history, well as the rugged individual you are, you would just tough it out - and have a little more money in your pocket. Teachers have been known to cooperate and back each other up. Well, if you don't want to be in the union, you don't need anyone's stinking help. If you happen to become a target of some administrator as layoff material, you will be all on your own, with no support from peers you have no use for anyway. Basically, you are become your own little Robinson Crusoe in your own little world, a man who is an island and world to himself. Good luck with that!
11
A teacher I worked with, a republican, disparaged unions and worked to get his dues reduced and would have signed on to this lawsuit if he hadn't retired. When harassed by a Michelle Rhee type of administrator, he sheepishly began attending union meetings at school and used the union's help to stop the administrator's harassment.
As seems typical of those on the right, empathy doesn't kick in until they are personally affected.
As seems typical of those on the right, empathy doesn't kick in until they are personally affected.
52
It is an amusing thought, though a terrifying one, to realize that Majority Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans are refusing to act on the President's nominee for the Supreme Court so that the position can be filled by a nominee of Donald Trump or Ted Cruz.
10
Or so they hope.
Ain't gonna happen.
The times, they are a changin'. And not a minute too soon. Maybe we can still salvage this mess.
Ain't gonna happen.
The times, they are a changin'. And not a minute too soon. Maybe we can still salvage this mess.
5
Well, I'm not amused.
2
And the icing on the cake is that the Republicans continue to block any nominee to fill the vacancy on the SCOTUS. Gee, maybe there is a God and he/she/it is giving them what they deserve.
8
Not to speak disrespectfully of the dead , but perhaps a 4 to 4 court will be better. At least they may meet their Constitutional responsibilities without first looking in the mirror...........
2
Had Scalia been around to vote, workers who chose not to join unions would not have had to pay for any collective bargaining activities on their behalf. Can someone explain to me how that would have been fundamentally different from Citizens United allowing corporations to spend stock owners' money on political campaigns without their consent.
18
I have long believed that those who choose not to support unions should not partake of the benefits for which unions lobbied and negotiated. These benefits include the weekend, the 40-hour work week, overtime pay for excess hours, double-time pay for ridiculously excessive hours, social security, workers comp, and medicare.
26
Well, knowing how much Republicans love unions, perhaps this ruling will get them to do their job and proceed with the SCOTUS nominee.
10
To the Republican-controlled Senate and its leader, Mitch McConnell, in particular, I would simply say: hope you got what you wanted in this case by refusing even to consider Obama's nomination.
16
Conservative and reactionary majority decisions by the Supreme Court died with Scalia. Thank the gods.
We likely will not find the political will to amend the Constitution to provide for a single 18-year term for Justices. But with any luck the Congressional changes devolving from the next Census and redistricting will make that unnecessary.
We likely will not find the political will to amend the Constitution to provide for a single 18-year term for Justices. But with any luck the Congressional changes devolving from the next Census and redistricting will make that unnecessary.
8
Hopefully Merrick Garland would have voted for the unions in this case. But it's a worrying thought that maybe he would not.
7
Don't worry -- Garland is a sacrificial lamb.
A better and younger candidate will end up on the Court.
Brilliant play by Obama.
A better and younger candidate will end up on the Court.
Brilliant play by Obama.
3
You are giving Obama way too much credit. Obama, skilled not at the art of politics, but at the art of compromising in advance of any need. He really, really wants the Republicans to like him, and continues to think if he appeases them in advance they will invite him to the cool kid cocktail parties. This means that it is the likes of Mitch McConnell, not Obama, who is President. Just wait. A few more decisions like these and the Republicans will leap at the chance to confirm Garland lest they end up with someone better and younger.
2
Has anyone asked the teachers in this lawsuit why they chose to work in public schools? Teachers do not have to work in public schools There are charter schools, religious schools, and private schools of all sorts. They are free to find employment where they are not burdened by union dues.
18
Just a taste of what it is going to be like, now that the Supreme Court is no longer in the grip of a right wing judicial activist. Justice Scalia didn't care for the Constitution, didn't care for the will of the American people, and never cared about 'settled law'. He was hellbent on imposing his extremist views on our country, bulldozing precedents and bullying the court until his death last month.
We need confirm President Obama's choice for Supreme Court Justice immediately to reverse the damage the Scalia Court has done to our poor country. The American people have voted for Democrats 5 of the last 6 Presidential elections. It is time for the high court to reflect that.
We need confirm President Obama's choice for Supreme Court Justice immediately to reverse the damage the Scalia Court has done to our poor country. The American people have voted for Democrats 5 of the last 6 Presidential elections. It is time for the high court to reflect that.
14
Wonderful outcome.
Unions are responsible for all the worker benefits we enjoy today: 40 hour work week, paid sick, holidays and vacation, health insurance, etc. If you want to see a full list: https://www.unionplus.org/about/labor-unions/36-reasons-thank-union.
We should support unions and ensure they are free from corruption. The fact that unions have been weakened since Reagan is now resulting in stagnant wages- along with corporate shipping of jobs overseas. If unions were stronger, perhaps corporations would not be able to so casually and easily ship jobs out of the country or abuse the visa program bringing in foreign workers to do jobs higher paid Americans were doing- a la Disney. Think about it. A strong union would never allow those shenanigans to happen. People need to figure out who is on the side of workers and who is not. People don't get it and vote against their own self interest.
Don't complain about jobs going to foreign workers with special visas on one side of your mouth- and then vote Republican.-It is the GOP who have refused to increase the minimum wage as just one example of how they are against workers.
Unions are responsible for all the worker benefits we enjoy today: 40 hour work week, paid sick, holidays and vacation, health insurance, etc. If you want to see a full list: https://www.unionplus.org/about/labor-unions/36-reasons-thank-union.
We should support unions and ensure they are free from corruption. The fact that unions have been weakened since Reagan is now resulting in stagnant wages- along with corporate shipping of jobs overseas. If unions were stronger, perhaps corporations would not be able to so casually and easily ship jobs out of the country or abuse the visa program bringing in foreign workers to do jobs higher paid Americans were doing- a la Disney. Think about it. A strong union would never allow those shenanigans to happen. People need to figure out who is on the side of workers and who is not. People don't get it and vote against their own self interest.
Don't complain about jobs going to foreign workers with special visas on one side of your mouth- and then vote Republican.-It is the GOP who have refused to increase the minimum wage as just one example of how they are against workers.
20
Unions may have their faults, but millions of American workers have been benefited by the rights that has been gained by the unions. Even the many others who were not represented by unions have subsequently earned the same rights that unions earned for their workers.
The decline of American living standards in all ares is directly correlated to the decline of the unions in this country.
The decline of American living standards in all ares is directly correlated to the decline of the unions in this country.
18
I bet Judge Garland is now looking better and better as a nominee, isn't he?
6
Although a 4-4 court is good in this case, workers
from Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota will have a very hard time getting contraception through the ACA because the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with religious fanatics who want to impose their beliefs on their employees.
We need a full court with a new progressive justice, not a so-called moderate like Merrick Garland.
from Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota will have a very hard time getting contraception through the ACA because the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with religious fanatics who want to impose their beliefs on their employees.
We need a full court with a new progressive justice, not a so-called moderate like Merrick Garland.
11
It is surprising to me how few people see the connection between the conservative dismantling of unions and the gap between those who are wealthy and the rest of us. Perhaps a history of unions and what we all have gained from the sacrifices of the early organizers should be required in all our schools--along with a course in how government works (or doesn't).
20
Yes! It's called Civics, and it used to be taught in public schools.
8
We've got a full year of potential deadlocks ahead of us, because the "radical GOP extremists" won't do their freaking jobs.
10
Chalk a win for the middle class. The correlation between the demise of unions and the demise pf the middle class is clear.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-labor-unio...
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-labor-unio...
17
I'll bet Mitch McConnell didn't bet on this. Since most district courts (except for the 4th, 5th and 11th) trend more liberal than conservative, the decisions of the Appeals courts will stand in each area of the county.
5
I wonder if Republicans are getting used to the feeling of being hoisted on their own petards?
10
Note from pedant's corner:
"Hoist" is actually the past participle of that Old English verb.
"He was hoist on his own petard"
equals
"He was exploded by his own bomb"
"Hoist" is actually the past participle of that Old English verb.
"He was hoist on his own petard"
equals
"He was exploded by his own bomb"
5
Note from the cafeteria: your lunch money is mine word-geek...
1
The GOP can't even obstruct properly. Now they're managing to get things done completely by accident.
12
A temporary but welcome setback for the corporate profiteers looking to privatize education. The Koch brothers, the Walton family, the Gates foundation, and the endless hedge fund investors will have to continue to spend their ill-gotten gains on other methods of union busting and public education breaking.
11
While I applaud this win for the people, I am concerned about what would happen if the 2016 election were to need to be "decided" with a 4-4 split in the Supreme Court. Which candidate would benefit from a 4-4 split? Would the senate quickly confirm Garland with the hope of winning the presidency? Would Obama withdraw his nomination?
1
You bring to mind Scalia's response whenever he was asked about the role of the Court in stopping the Florida vote count to hand the election to Bush the Younger:
"Get over it."
"Get over it."
3
Good news couldn't come at a better time. And the best, as they say, is yet to come... We just need to keep our hats on 'til November, Don goes back to reality TV and we're done for the next three decades.
7
As a recently retired CA state employee though I am not a teacher, I applaud the Supremes decision on Fair Share fees. Why should the objector's be freeloaders? While I can't speak for CA teachers I know that CA state fair share fee payers also get representation by the union if there is disciplinary action taken. They do not vote in union elections. We have separate fees for political actions such as elections. However, lobbying can also be done on behalf of a department in order to get more money for the department for various projects and special programs - not just politics. As a long time observer of California state politics I can tell you that the anti-public sector union groups are already planning a new lawsuit. This is their modus operandi - they continue to challenge what they don't like forcing the unions to spend continuous time, energy and money re-litigating what has already been won. It prevents us from moving on to other issues important to the members.
136
" However, lobbying can also be done on behalf of a department in order to get more money for the department for various projects and special programs - not just politics."
You miss the entire point of the law suit ! The argument is that lobbying by the union to get more money for a department is inherently political since such expenditures are sourced from government revenue and reflect a choice between increased school funding or other municipal expenditures such as police, fire, parks, etc.
You miss the entire point of the law suit ! The argument is that lobbying by the union to get more money for a department is inherently political since such expenditures are sourced from government revenue and reflect a choice between increased school funding or other municipal expenditures such as police, fire, parks, etc.
You mean like teaching the children the teachers were hired to educate?
if they hate the union fees so much, why not teach in a private school, where they can enjoy the right to be fired at any time for any reason or no reason at all, lower wages, higher health insurance premiums, and freedom from pensions.
24
I generally support unions, and I agree with this decision, but having had kids in both public and private schools, and having attended both myself, I do think that kids are the victims when teachers unions are able to hamstring schools in firing decisions.
The less competent teachers were gone from my and my kids' private schools in pretty short order. This was certainly not the case at my kids' and my own public schools.
One example: my son's public school US History teacher, marking the years left to retirement, could barely stay awake in front of the room even on Parent Night. His unit on the civil war consisted mostly of a field trip to see the movie "Lincoln."
Collectively negotiate salary, benefits and work conditions? Yes.
But absent clear targeting of union activists, districts should be able to fire with little delay or cost. Tenure hurts kids.
The less competent teachers were gone from my and my kids' private schools in pretty short order. This was certainly not the case at my kids' and my own public schools.
One example: my son's public school US History teacher, marking the years left to retirement, could barely stay awake in front of the room even on Parent Night. His unit on the civil war consisted mostly of a field trip to see the movie "Lincoln."
Collectively negotiate salary, benefits and work conditions? Yes.
But absent clear targeting of union activists, districts should be able to fire with little delay or cost. Tenure hurts kids.
2
Sigh, expect a rainstorm of bad right-wing lower court decisions (anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-everything) to be sent to the Supreme Court...and instead of being rejected by the Court, they will stick. Looks like the last piece of the States rights over Federal rights game.
1
It seems that any teacher that does not want to pay for the union to negotiate for them should have to negotiate their own salary and benefits. I'm curious as to how well they would fare.
10
Union officials just don't negotiate deals for members, they also have a history of malfeasance, spending an inordinate amount of money on perks not unlike the Teamsters or, more recently, Wounded Warriors officials. They are corrupt for the most part. That is the problem non members face and have complained about.
In any case, why should any teacher be bullied into such arrangements.
In any case, why should any teacher be bullied into such arrangements.
1
I dunno...why should Rick Scott have been able to use the $300 million he got as a golden handshake after his health care company got busted for the largest Medicare fine in history to buy the governorshgip?
1
When I was required to be a member of a well-known international union, I was given the option to only pay the amount of dues that went toward collective bargaining activities. The union calculated this as 98% of the full dues. Somehow they were able to find the money to send their staff on junkets to Las Vegas and to contribute money to the general strike fund (although my bargaining unit was not allowed to strike), but they never had enough money to hire a lawyer during labor negotiations.
Most people would classify me as a bleeding-heart liberal, but that experience showed me that plenty of unions put their own interests ahead of their members'.
Most people would classify me as a bleeding-heart liberal, but that experience showed me that plenty of unions put their own interests ahead of their members'.
2
This case isn't about collective bargaining at all. It is the Republicans' attempt to destroy the financial wherewithal of public sector unions. If a member gains the benefits of collective bargaining without paying dues, why pay the dues? So union membership goes down, dues income goes down, and the ability of unions to support Democratic politicians goes down. This is the scheme Walker ran successfully to destroy the public sector unions in Wisconsin and what Rauner dearly wants to do to them here in Illinois.
13
Hog wash! Unions and poor corporate management destroyed the auto industry.
Unions destroyed the Longshoremen of NYC and other the other ports when they resisted containerization back in the 1960's. And, how about the corrupt teamsters?! The poor overall record of union exploitation of their members and businesses speaks for itself.
Unions destroyed the Longshoremen of NYC and other the other ports when they resisted containerization back in the 1960's. And, how about the corrupt teamsters?! The poor overall record of union exploitation of their members and businesses speaks for itself.
1
Actually, Ronal Reagan destroyed the unions. A little understanding of complex historical contexts goes a long way.
It's Ronald Reagan. Good spelling goes a long way, too. In any case, he was justified to fight the air controllers. Not sure what other unions he destroyed BUT the country got back on its feet during his Presidency. Did you prefer 20% interest rates that Carter gave us? The humiliation slapped on us by Iran in the aftermath of the Ayatollah's return which was sanctioned by Carter? J
umping ahead, do you want a socialist economy that deadbeats and incompetents can live off of your handwork? Or, do you want Hillary who blows with the wind and who should already be behind bars for her flagrant disregard of the law?
umping ahead, do you want a socialist economy that deadbeats and incompetents can live off of your handwork? Or, do you want Hillary who blows with the wind and who should already be behind bars for her flagrant disregard of the law?
1
I am a lawyer with a background and political views somewhat similar to Judge Garland. I would have voted against the unions had I been on the Supreme Court. Be careful what you wish for, Republican senators.
Tenured, Union Teachers in the current K-12 system have "due process" rights;they have a voice,power to push back against management. What the public may not realize about public schools is their "management" is comprised largely of ex-teachers who opted out of the classroom -- and often have little, if any leadership or managerial experience, skills, and training. Yet school administrators wield the power, command the higher salaries,and frequently play politics. The union is the only hope in the continuing struggle for any genuine fairness in the workplace. Many charter schools provide petrie dishes of non-union workplaces: They have difficulty retaining experienced teachers,the backbone of quality schools; they hire the less experienced, and overwork and underpay them -- Without union rights, teachers are easily silenced, pushed out, thrown under the school bus, replaced by a system that values only the bottom line. It is the students who are ultimately cheated. The Loss of Scalia= a gain for the public.
8
This illustrates, very clearly, that the Supreme Court is not about interpreting laws or the Constitution, but about making political and social decisions based on the members' ideology.
I don't think there is anything such as an objective supreme court member today - only left-wing and right-wing attorneys.
I don't think there is anything such as an objective supreme court member today - only left-wing and right-wing attorneys.
2
It has never been otherwise.
A similar tie will be a huge windfall for the pro-life movement: the more-restrictive laws will remain in place. Keep your fingers crossed, PP devotees.
1
This jugement is paradoxical, and in some ways un-democratic and un-American.
In most "socialist" (in the American - often derogatory - meaning of this word) European countries, people are usually free to join a union of their choice, or not, and therefore to pay union dues, or not.
This is only logical in a democratic system, as one should not force membership in an organization whose ideas or methods he/she does not share or whose leaders he/she does not trust.
In Europe, this gives rise to a variety of unions in many industries or companies, which represent a variety of views.
Regretably, the US system remains un-democratic in some respects, like on this case.
In most "socialist" (in the American - often derogatory - meaning of this word) European countries, people are usually free to join a union of their choice, or not, and therefore to pay union dues, or not.
This is only logical in a democratic system, as one should not force membership in an organization whose ideas or methods he/she does not share or whose leaders he/she does not trust.
In Europe, this gives rise to a variety of unions in many industries or companies, which represent a variety of views.
Regretably, the US system remains un-democratic in some respects, like on this case.
In Europe (home of socialism...) many countries work with both unions and industry to support trade and vocational schools to everyone's benefit...
FDR was against Public Employee Unions (PEU) and for good reason.
PEUs get too many bites at the apple. They get one bite via collective bargaining. They get another bite by voting and thus influencing policy regarding their employment. They get a third bite by members running for office and thus executing policy. They get a fourth bite by bribing (donating to political campaigns) elected and appointed public officials.
This combination of influences often serves to defraud the taxpayers of cost effective service and sometimes creates unsustainable labor contracts.
PEUs get too many bites at the apple. They get one bite via collective bargaining. They get another bite by voting and thus influencing policy regarding their employment. They get a third bite by members running for office and thus executing policy. They get a fourth bite by bribing (donating to political campaigns) elected and appointed public officials.
This combination of influences often serves to defraud the taxpayers of cost effective service and sometimes creates unsustainable labor contracts.
A victory for public workers and teachers' right to collectively bargain.
And a defeat for the conservative group "Center for Individual Rights," The group that funded the Friedrichs suit. Their aim, now thwarted, was to get a conservative SCOTUS majority to overturn Abood vs. Detroit a 1977 union dues case allowing "fair share" fees for members of a collective bargaining unit that choose not to pay union dues to their union.
Unions refer to individuals who take benefits, raises, pensions and due process policies without paying dues as "freeloaders." Thank goodness working families dodged a bullet on this one. Yet another shadowy 'conservative' group trying to break unions - this time they lost because the Senate refuses to do its job . . . something to do with ignoring the US Constitution.
Sometimes so-called "conservative" double-talk, bamboozle and smoke and mirrors offers well-derserved pay back.
And a defeat for the conservative group "Center for Individual Rights," The group that funded the Friedrichs suit. Their aim, now thwarted, was to get a conservative SCOTUS majority to overturn Abood vs. Detroit a 1977 union dues case allowing "fair share" fees for members of a collective bargaining unit that choose not to pay union dues to their union.
Unions refer to individuals who take benefits, raises, pensions and due process policies without paying dues as "freeloaders." Thank goodness working families dodged a bullet on this one. Yet another shadowy 'conservative' group trying to break unions - this time they lost because the Senate refuses to do its job . . . something to do with ignoring the US Constitution.
Sometimes so-called "conservative" double-talk, bamboozle and smoke and mirrors offers well-derserved pay back.
6
Alas, this is only a temporary situation. Should the Republicans continue to be derelict in their duties (yes, Mr. Hatch, you should be ashamed) and the country elects any of the GOP candidates, we will see a Supreme Court that is wholly a partisan entity, entirely a tool of the GOP and its backers. That will be a terrible day for the future of this nation. Justice Scalia allowed his decisions to be informed by his political and religious beliefs. The Court must be above politics, above religion, above all the influences that have utterly corrupted our Congress.
Our republic is in peril, because the next wave of GOP leadership has revealed its goals - they want complete domination of the government so as to remake this nation into a 19th century nightmare of deregulated corporations and impoverished, fearful, uneducated wage slaves. We've seen the future that the GOP wants - it's robber barons, unsafe workhouses, polluted - blighted landscapes, it's Germany 1933. It's everything that the Great Society isn't, and it moves us miles closer to the end of our society, the sunset of our species.
Our republic is in peril, because the next wave of GOP leadership has revealed its goals - they want complete domination of the government so as to remake this nation into a 19th century nightmare of deregulated corporations and impoverished, fearful, uneducated wage slaves. We've seen the future that the GOP wants - it's robber barons, unsafe workhouses, polluted - blighted landscapes, it's Germany 1933. It's everything that the Great Society isn't, and it moves us miles closer to the end of our society, the sunset of our species.
8
"which was brought by California public schoolteachers who chose not to join unions and objected to paying for the unions’ collective bargaining activities on their behalf."
The public school teachers who brought this suit were actually a dark money funded "group" funded by Koch brothers.
The public school teachers who brought this suit were actually a dark money funded "group" funded by Koch brothers.
23
That is true. They and the Walton family can't get charter school things passed in CA so they decided to go this route. Wish papers would write about how these families are trying to kill public education with all their wealth.
10
Yes. And some from their "Americans for Prosperity" front for the Koch brothers and the Walton family and their other friends are paid to post on here, and to march outside the Supreme Court.
4
I'll say it again: this situation is just hilarious. If Merrick Garland were seated on the Court he'd probably give the GOP the victories they want in some of these cases, but thanks to their pigheaded, knee-jerk obstructionism of anything proposed by President Obama, there will be instead be a string of non-decisions.
The Republicans are beyond parody at this point.
The Republicans are beyond parody at this point.
12
Yep. I had the same thought.
1
Yes, you're right about Garland. Obama blew the chance to nominate a liberal. I'm glad for McConnell's obstructionism. If the Republicans win the election they get to pick the justice. If I'm going to be stuck with a justice who would rule against unions, I'm stuck, but at least he won't have been appointed by a Democrat.
Finally! A win for the good guys.
12
When I was a union-represented employee many, many years ago. my colleagues and I viewed union dues as analogous to paying taxes--it was all part of paying for services that advance the common good of the membership. Union dues are as appropriate and necessary as taxes. Those that do not understand are irredeemably benighted.
22
Well, well, ….the GOP has finally shot itself in the foot. Welcome to the 99% of us that are walking around with feet that look like Swiss cheese thanks to Scalia.
15
The argument is that union members should not have to pay for union activities that they disagree with.
However people who support that argument are inconsistent.
Using the same logic stockholders should not have to pay for political activities of the corporation they own stock in.
Money spent on political activity decreases the corporation's wealth and ability to pay a certain dividend.
Saying a stockholder could sell his stock does not address the inconsistency between the union question and the corporate one.
Neither does saying the union members could find another job.
Whether it is easier to sell one's stock than to find another job is also irrelevant.
The main issue is that many believe public sector employees are overpaid and busting the public service unions is one way of doing this.
Decreasing the funding of unions via this opt out mechanism is one way of decreasing the strength of these unions.
That unions support mainly Democratic Party candidates is another motivation for conservatives to want to bust public service unions.
However people who support that argument are inconsistent.
Using the same logic stockholders should not have to pay for political activities of the corporation they own stock in.
Money spent on political activity decreases the corporation's wealth and ability to pay a certain dividend.
Saying a stockholder could sell his stock does not address the inconsistency between the union question and the corporate one.
Neither does saying the union members could find another job.
Whether it is easier to sell one's stock than to find another job is also irrelevant.
The main issue is that many believe public sector employees are overpaid and busting the public service unions is one way of doing this.
Decreasing the funding of unions via this opt out mechanism is one way of decreasing the strength of these unions.
That unions support mainly Democratic Party candidates is another motivation for conservatives to want to bust public service unions.
7
But they can opt out. They want to change the law to make it opt in instead. The previous decision was used to support having to pay bar fees for lawyers and other fees. Get rid of this than it opens a Pandora box of other decisions.
1
There's a big difference between bar association fees and union dues. Bar association fees get one entree to networking events and discounts on continuing legal ed. They do not negotiate wages and working condition for their members. I'd voluntarily double my bar association dues if they did.
For years, the Republicans have been applying to Court to overturn decisions of the Obama Administration. That is, they didn't have the votes, so they relied on the Conservatives on the bench.
Now that the balance of the court is more even, the Republican ploy isn't likely to be so successful. Why then, block the confirmation of Judge Garland?
and where is Chief Justice John Roberts? why isn't he defending his branch of government?
Now that the balance of the court is more even, the Republican ploy isn't likely to be so successful. Why then, block the confirmation of Judge Garland?
and where is Chief Justice John Roberts? why isn't he defending his branch of government?
6
Maybe in the future the teachers who reject the unions will accept the lower wages on offer!
14
Had Scalia lived and voted against the unions as predicted, I would have been inclined to push for the reduction of my federal taxes on the basis of my disagreement with the government's position on foreign policy, much of which I strongly disagree with. Now that I think about it, I don't much care for a lot of the FEDs domestic policies either....
5
This news will surely come as a great disappointment to all those (yes, that includes you, Charter school operators!) who believe working people should have no say in the terms of their employment. This underlying issues in this case were actually resolved a few years ago by the Supreme Court in a sensible compromise, but having no respect for precedent, the conservative justices wanted another crack at taking public unions down. It was only the death of that reputedly great legal scholar, Antonin Scalia, that saved public unions. But it isn't only public unions that have been threatened and undermined, ever since the 1870's actually. Through lockouts, massacres, Right to Work laws, and outsourcing, private industry unions have taken heavy blows. The decline in union membership is one of the fundamental causes of the erosion of middle class status for millions of people. Without them, where would my immigrant family have been? Solidarity forever!
13
Tenured, union teachers in the current K-12 system have "due process;" rights ; they have a voice, some modicum of power to push back against management. This is no small thing. What the public may not realize is that in public schools "management" is comprised of teachers who opted out of the classroom with more often than not -- little, if any leadership or managerial skills and training - but wield the power and command the higher salaries in the system. The union is the only hope in the continuing struggle for real fairness. in the workplace. Unions are the workers' voice in salaries, benefits, work hours, among many concerns. In non-unionized schools ,such as many charter schools , teachers are often paid less, have less benefits , and. saliently have no "due process" rights, no voice in the way they or the school are managed. These non-unionized public schools also feature this "revolving door " of faculty, hire less experienced teachers , overwork and underpay them -- and then have difficulty retaining experienced teachers. Without union rights, teachers are quite easily silenced , pushed out, thrown under the school bus., replaced by a system that values the bottom line. This non-Union system cheats not only the workers -- but also the students it's supposed to be serving. All this to say: Scalia's loss is the. workers' gain.
7
A great day in America! This decision may prove more important to the health of the nation than the rulings upholding Obamacare and gay marriage.
5
OMG, an appeals court followed Supreme Court precedent?
Well, without a 5th conservative justice on SCOTUS, maybe we'll see more decisions that don't overturn precedent, like the Roberts court did with Citizens United and the Voting Rights Act case.
Well, without a 5th conservative justice on SCOTUS, maybe we'll see more decisions that don't overturn precedent, like the Roberts court did with Citizens United and the Voting Rights Act case.
6
When it becomes child play to predict the outcome of a Supreme Court Decision based on Political policy, they it is time for a new court.
4
Who needs the Supreme Court of the United States?
Who needs the United States Senate and House of Representatives?
The law is gender, racial, colored, ethnic, sectarian, national origin, socioeconomic political history plus arithmetic. Nether the law as interpreted by judicial opinions nor intended by lawmakers has anthing to do with logic, reason, objectivity, justice, morality, fairness and truth.
As long as there is no negotiation nor compromise the Founding Father's intended gridlock to preserve the governing status quo.Since neither SCOTUS nor the Conngress can or will not do their jobs we should not pay them and ask them to leave our property. Or we the people will take back all of the powers that we temporarily and conditionally gave to them. "Hit the Road Jack!'
Who needs the United States Senate and House of Representatives?
The law is gender, racial, colored, ethnic, sectarian, national origin, socioeconomic political history plus arithmetic. Nether the law as interpreted by judicial opinions nor intended by lawmakers has anthing to do with logic, reason, objectivity, justice, morality, fairness and truth.
As long as there is no negotiation nor compromise the Founding Father's intended gridlock to preserve the governing status quo.Since neither SCOTUS nor the Conngress can or will not do their jobs we should not pay them and ask them to leave our property. Or we the people will take back all of the powers that we temporarily and conditionally gave to them. "Hit the Road Jack!'
4
Yesterday’s editorial column by Krugman compared the influence of unions in industrial nations that have international trade policies similar to ours. All of these nations are faced with low wage competition from less prosperous trading partners. Only in the US has international trade had a devastating impact of blue collar workers. That difference is correlated with the loss of union participation in the US relative to nations such as Canada and Denmark where unions remain strong and blue collar employment remains strong. The combination of unions who negotiate compensation packages for workers and a social safety net that supports job retraining and income support when factory work is displaced by foreign low wage workers is the key to this striking difference in outcomes.
Today’s divided court ruling is a victory for workers in the US. Although teachers are not considered blue collar, many of the public employee unions who also benefit from this divided court ruling employ the few remaining blue collar workers who have not been effected by efforts to undermine both unions and the social safety net. The populist-right has persuaded many of America’s blue collar workers that foreign competition is their enemy instead of those who are undermining unions who are the real culprits.
Today’s divided court ruling is a victory for workers in the US. Although teachers are not considered blue collar, many of the public employee unions who also benefit from this divided court ruling employ the few remaining blue collar workers who have not been effected by efforts to undermine both unions and the social safety net. The populist-right has persuaded many of America’s blue collar workers that foreign competition is their enemy instead of those who are undermining unions who are the real culprits.
5
Victory is victory, until it isn't. This case will be argued again at the lower court's level an d will re-emerge on the SCOTUS' docket in a few years.
1
In Cuba, Obama contrasted the US-Cuban focuses--the "orthodox" dichotomy-- individual(ism) vs collective(ism).
The dichotomy is bogus. All public/collective works include parks, roads, ports, airports, water, sewage, health, education and welfare infrastructure--as well as OTHER economic initiatives--such as property, tax and labor law, projects and bailouts.
The difference is merely one of degree; not one of "religion". Polities should be free to experiment--and change. The US embargo was really imposing its "religion" on Cuba--driving Cuba into subjugation by the USSR--which Cubans hated.
So too with collective bargaining and the enforcement of collective agreements. Large corporate employers are really polities--making and enforcing policy as well as requiring recognition and compliance. Unions are much like class-action law enforcement.
Of course corporation hate class action--preferring individual vs collective agreements. It's simply divide and conquer, control, humiliate and demean--not quite enslave.
Freeing up individuals by undermining collective agreement and enforcement is like freeing up drivers to drive on whichever side of the road they like. Rational people--with just a little foresight--know that would greatly diminish chances of getting anywhere.
Individuals acting alone could not possibly afford to enforce their contracts in court. Employers would bankrupt them. Their individual freedom would cost a lot in quality of life.
The dichotomy is bogus. All public/collective works include parks, roads, ports, airports, water, sewage, health, education and welfare infrastructure--as well as OTHER economic initiatives--such as property, tax and labor law, projects and bailouts.
The difference is merely one of degree; not one of "religion". Polities should be free to experiment--and change. The US embargo was really imposing its "religion" on Cuba--driving Cuba into subjugation by the USSR--which Cubans hated.
So too with collective bargaining and the enforcement of collective agreements. Large corporate employers are really polities--making and enforcing policy as well as requiring recognition and compliance. Unions are much like class-action law enforcement.
Of course corporation hate class action--preferring individual vs collective agreements. It's simply divide and conquer, control, humiliate and demean--not quite enslave.
Freeing up individuals by undermining collective agreement and enforcement is like freeing up drivers to drive on whichever side of the road they like. Rational people--with just a little foresight--know that would greatly diminish chances of getting anywhere.
Individuals acting alone could not possibly afford to enforce their contracts in court. Employers would bankrupt them. Their individual freedom would cost a lot in quality of life.
5
Another victory for the left. It is OK to force people to join labor unions against their free will. That is what America is all about. It seems the left is only "Pro-Choice" when it comes to killing fetuses.
2
No one is forced to join. They are forced to pay for services rendered - representation by the union in bargaining and contract administration.
If government can force you to buy insurance if you want to put a car on the road, it can force you to pay your share of representation costs if you choose to work in covered employment.
And there's a second fundamental inaccuracy to your comment. the "victory" you lament is about 40 years old. What happened here is a failure to reverse settled precedent.
If government can force you to buy insurance if you want to put a car on the road, it can force you to pay your share of representation costs if you choose to work in covered employment.
And there's a second fundamental inaccuracy to your comment. the "victory" you lament is about 40 years old. What happened here is a failure to reverse settled precedent.
3
NYChap,
Don't work for a Union contract. Simple. Done.
Plenty of other employment opportunities you strong boot-strapper.
Personal responsibility remember.?!
Or would you be like Joe the Plumber (which was neither) and join the Union because it paid better and had security and a pension.
Yeah, thought so.
Don't work for a Union contract. Simple. Done.
Plenty of other employment opportunities you strong boot-strapper.
Personal responsibility remember.?!
Or would you be like Joe the Plumber (which was neither) and join the Union because it paid better and had security and a pension.
Yeah, thought so.
1
The Supreme Court is not the only means of political change. A union member unhappy with the free-rider rule can try to change the union's action. He/she can petition California's legislature to change the rule. Non-political solutions exist too, such as change industry or move to a different state.
2
Thank you all, Senate Republican posers. So interested in the short term pandering to the Obama haters, that you never thought about the effects of 4-4 Supreme Court split votes.
6
Without public service unions teachers may find themselves being replaced by the unqualified. The classroom is not Sunday School.
3
For those that bring up the criticism that unions can grow too large and bloated and raise labor costs too high:
Remember that two parties sign a contract. If management signs a contract, it is agreeing that it can meet the requirements of the contract and still afford it or, in the private sector's case, still make a profit.
Therefore, if management signs a contract that it cannot afford (e.g., GM and UAW), the blame lies squarely on their heads, not the union's. I realize it's a sword that cuts both ways: I consider Hostess' shutting down of its plant in the face of expensive union demands to be fair play as well.
In any matter, I've worked both union and non-union jobs and much prefer the security provided under a union job. I've seen people get promoted in the private sector, pat themselves on the back for showing that individual negotiation works, only to be laid off later one due to being too expensive to the company with little to fall back on. In my unionized job, there's an entire system that doesn't leave me out to dry when labor cuts come my way.
Unions are simply the means through which an equilibrium can be reached with management over labor costs, rather than management simply holding all the cards in what it pays its laborers.
Remember that two parties sign a contract. If management signs a contract, it is agreeing that it can meet the requirements of the contract and still afford it or, in the private sector's case, still make a profit.
Therefore, if management signs a contract that it cannot afford (e.g., GM and UAW), the blame lies squarely on their heads, not the union's. I realize it's a sword that cuts both ways: I consider Hostess' shutting down of its plant in the face of expensive union demands to be fair play as well.
In any matter, I've worked both union and non-union jobs and much prefer the security provided under a union job. I've seen people get promoted in the private sector, pat themselves on the back for showing that individual negotiation works, only to be laid off later one due to being too expensive to the company with little to fall back on. In my unionized job, there's an entire system that doesn't leave me out to dry when labor cuts come my way.
Unions are simply the means through which an equilibrium can be reached with management over labor costs, rather than management simply holding all the cards in what it pays its laborers.
5
With the Republicans refusing to carryout their sworn duty to hold a hearing for Judge Merrick Garland, the party of dysfunction may ironically cause many more Supreme Court wins for the people. Interesting that America is actually better off from this Republican obstruction which is intended to serve their right-wing interests. And if the obstruction continues Republicans are likely going to suffer more setbacks...a loss of control over the Senate in November and a decidedly more liberal nominee than Judge Garland next January.
4
If people do not want to work in a union, then get another job. Everyone but you should not have union dues but you reap the same benefits free of charge? Forget that!
1
Antonin Scalia cloaked an ideology that was both activist and right-wing with the mantle of "originalism." He used this to justify up-ending precedents, often to benefit very narrow, powerful interests. His presence on the Court probably empowered many of those interests who could count on his support, and helped reinforce the overwhelming sense of cynicism about the Court. The same thing could have just as easily gone in the opposite direction, and his sudden death demonstrates exactly why moderation on the Supreme Court should be valued by both liberals and conservatives.
2
Life's little ironies. Ya gotta love it...
5
I hope you also equally enjoy the second part that is on its way: Vergara vs. State of California.
I would tend to agree that current tenure rules (2 years...) are too extreme. Were I King of California, I'd increase the "trial" period to 5 years. Tenure, however, is a needed protection, especially in today's polarized society. I would not eviscerate the remaining law, or the union.
Should a teacher disagree, there are non-union teaching jobs in private schools, charter schools and parochial schools as options.
Should a teacher disagree, there are non-union teaching jobs in private schools, charter schools and parochial schools as options.
It's remarkable that you see the public school teaching position, paid for my the taxpayer, as just another well-paid, well-protected government job. You are concerned solely about the security of the teachers at the expense of students' and taxpayers' interests. Your argument about protection does not hold because the teachers can be protected by the same laws as I am against discrimination.
Scalia would have voted to overturn standing precedent and override a state’s democratically elected legislature and governor. He would have cast aside a century’s worth of jurisprudence and wisdom in order to impoverish working Americans, just as he did when he voted to allow corporations and billionaires to corrupt our political process in the Citizens United case. As a nation, we are lucky that his brand of radical activism is drawing to a close.
11
I am relieved. It was a victory for Unions. However, I cannot help but worry that the outcome will make the obnoxious, obstructionist Republicans dig their collective heels in about considering a Supreme Court nominee unless they have control of Congress and the White House, and of course the nominee has the NRA seal of approval.
2
>> “fair share service fee,” meant to pay for collective bargaining activities, including “the cost of lobbying activities.”
Right, but only non-partisan lobbying activities like "more funding for arts education" or "make summer school available to all who want it." Supporting particular candidates or parties is NOT paid for with fees or dues. It's paid for with voluntary contributions to the union's separate political fund.
Right, but only non-partisan lobbying activities like "more funding for arts education" or "make summer school available to all who want it." Supporting particular candidates or parties is NOT paid for with fees or dues. It's paid for with voluntary contributions to the union's separate political fund.
4
That is true of CA where these teachers live. Teachers can chose to join a PAC which is a separate fee decided by the teacher.
Without a public sector union, teachers for example may find those unqualified to teach replacing them. The classroom is not Sunday School.
4
An interesting development would result if another conservative Justice went to his reward and President Obama were then beat about the head and shoulders by the Republicans for not nominating an `acceptable' SCOTUS replacement. Boo hoo.
Unions are essential. And in a nation that 'unites' capital under disastrous rulings like 'Citizens' United', they are a small effort at balance.
It's so strange that in these times of uprisings on both the left and the right, many workers still resist organized efforts on their behalf..... there is a peculiar, self-defeating selfishness on display in their sentiments.
It's so strange that in these times of uprisings on both the left and the right, many workers still resist organized efforts on their behalf..... there is a peculiar, self-defeating selfishness on display in their sentiments.
2
They are duped by corporate tools like FoxNews.
3
Workers who do not wish to share in the cost burden of unionization should simply be allowed to opt out, and not be subject to any contract or benefits or labor rules the union secures. If the union negotiates tougher protections and good pay and benefits, let those chips fall were they may.
But this is naive, of course. I bet there are plenty of union busting billionaires who would gladly dole out the pittance it would take to subsidize the refusniks -- at least until the union broke. Then it's back to subsistence pay, for everyone.
In the capitalist US, workers oppress themselves.
But this is naive, of course. I bet there are plenty of union busting billionaires who would gladly dole out the pittance it would take to subsidize the refusniks -- at least until the union broke. Then it's back to subsistence pay, for everyone.
In the capitalist US, workers oppress themselves.
2
All those who are lamenting this decision: Tell me again how people are better off when they're at the mercy of their bosses.
5
When they don't view their bosses as the enemy?
Titian --
You mean when they're so stupid that they think that management is looking out for the best interests of labor?
You mean when they're so stupid that they think that management is looking out for the best interests of labor?
2
While we have unions to thank for changing workplace laws and regulations in the past, today they are little more than a special interest group. Yes, it's great that unions have looked out for teachers' salaries. But what about the lousy teachers who consistently underperform yet can't be fired? What about those who don't believe in unions on a fundamental level? Let's look at it this way. Say you work with a bunch of coworkers who support guns in the workplace. They say you have to contribute to the fund that provides bullets for the guns, even though you don't believe that guns should be in the workplace. They argue that you are benefitting from the protection that their guns offer in case a gunman opens fire in the workplace, so you should pay. I can tell you that won't sit well with a lot of readers out there.
Behind every lousy teacher is a lousy administrator.
If those people don't want the union to bargain better pay and benefits for them then don't give those people the better pay and benefit that were won. Problem solved!
2
Its' interesting to read the comments, but not surprising. NYT represents a group of people who firmly believe that collective will can be forced on an individual - A very traditional socialist paradigm. The fact that an individual may not consider the Union's positions and demands as "benefits" doesn't seem to cross anyone's mind. The teacher union, in particular, has had only one objective - job security for themselves and their members. The impact of that position on teh quality of our education is irrelevant. It goes without saying that our schools are stocked by mediocrities who hide behind the "benefits" and destroy the teacher's reputations. Including the good ones. And that may not be seen as a "benefit" by a truly caring and thoughtful teacher.
2
The 1% onslaught to destroy Unions and in concentrating on teachers unions is to weaken any participation in the political process of our nation ! The funding by states for charter schools is another tactic by the oligarchy ,to destroy the public school educational system ,with the goal to have non union teachers !The passing of right to work laws in many states, is another tactic by the oligarchy to weaken unions !
1
The position that states a person not paying union dues is benefitting from the activities from that union and not paying for it is using bad logic because a assumption is made that the union will get the best contract possible and that these teachers can not do better if they negotiate on their own.
First when the union negotiates they negotiate for all of the people they represent.
Not all of these teachers are good.
Some are below average some are average and some are above average.
It is logical to assume the better teachers would get paid more if they can negotiate a contract based on their individual ability but because their pay is tied to what the contract states these individuals will get less.
These individual therefore do not benefit from what the union does.
In addition to the above some teachers would have been paid more but have to accept less because the union has a agenda which can be political.
I know this because I once worked for HRA in NYC and was forced to accept a transfer when the union that represented me made a agreement that that took away my civil service status as long as I worked for ACS.
Do not assume every worker benefits from having a union represent them
and you would understand why some should not have to pay that union
to negotiate a contract.
First when the union negotiates they negotiate for all of the people they represent.
Not all of these teachers are good.
Some are below average some are average and some are above average.
It is logical to assume the better teachers would get paid more if they can negotiate a contract based on their individual ability but because their pay is tied to what the contract states these individuals will get less.
These individual therefore do not benefit from what the union does.
In addition to the above some teachers would have been paid more but have to accept less because the union has a agenda which can be political.
I know this because I once worked for HRA in NYC and was forced to accept a transfer when the union that represented me made a agreement that that took away my civil service status as long as I worked for ACS.
Do not assume every worker benefits from having a union represent them
and you would understand why some should not have to pay that union
to negotiate a contract.
1
Hallelujah! Thank you Scalia and Mitch McConnell.
4
How about if I apply this reasoning to my taxes and ask the government for a refund for the Iraq war, the oil-depletion allowance, the carried-interest tax dodge, agricultural subsidies, etc.?
4
Where? McConnell confirming Obama's pick would have changed this outcome?
No. The timing is off.
1
This outcome furthers the concept of "No Free Riders" and thus is more important than just its impact on unions.
The president recently took to task as free riders America's allies who shelter behind our military strength while contributing either nothing or too little to the manpower and expense of the common defense.
The mandate of the ACA for individuals to have health insurance is a public policy to eliminate free riders.
Increasing the minimum wage has the effect of reducing the amount of free riding by employers paying so little that their employees qualify for food stamps and other public assistance just to subsist near or below poverty level. In reality both those employers and their employees are on welfare.
Polluters are free riders.
However pervasive the impulse to be a free rider might be, free riding is barely disguised theft. For some Supreme Court justices to have embraced the notion that Friedrichs v. CTA was a First Amendment case is an embarrassment.
The president recently took to task as free riders America's allies who shelter behind our military strength while contributing either nothing or too little to the manpower and expense of the common defense.
The mandate of the ACA for individuals to have health insurance is a public policy to eliminate free riders.
Increasing the minimum wage has the effect of reducing the amount of free riding by employers paying so little that their employees qualify for food stamps and other public assistance just to subsist near or below poverty level. In reality both those employers and their employees are on welfare.
Polluters are free riders.
However pervasive the impulse to be a free rider might be, free riding is barely disguised theft. For some Supreme Court justices to have embraced the notion that Friedrichs v. CTA was a First Amendment case is an embarrassment.
3
Brilliant comment. Thank you.
1
After many years in a public union, I saw first-hand how collective bargaining mostly perpetuated mediocrity. I was always much more in favor of raises based on merit, but apparently this is discriminatory. So how do you reward your best employees? You don't - and they leave - and you're stuck with an unmotivated and relatively untalented public workforce.
4
This whole issue is perplexing.
Why would a person take a job in a union shop if they do not want to be part of a union? They like the benefits but don't want to help pay for them? How incredibly selfish and misguided.
Unions can't only work for select employees. Imagine when the non-union members start realizing that their union co-workers are earning 10-15% more in their paychecks doing the same work with more health benefits and better working conditions. I bet they'd think a little more clearly - which they aren't.
Why would a person take a job in a union shop if they do not want to be part of a union? They like the benefits but don't want to help pay for them? How incredibly selfish and misguided.
Unions can't only work for select employees. Imagine when the non-union members start realizing that their union co-workers are earning 10-15% more in their paychecks doing the same work with more health benefits and better working conditions. I bet they'd think a little more clearly - which they aren't.
2
Funny thing is, Judge Garland might well have voted against the unions. Ha!
2
Blindfolded I can tell you the breakdown of the justices. SCOTUS is a joke.
4
That's really all public sector unions are about: how to extort more money from taxpayers and apparently their own members.
Unions are just another big corporation trying to defraud the public and their members.
Unions are just another big corporation trying to defraud the public and their members.
2
I suspect that CJ Roberts is already scrambling to boot future potential 4-4 decisions ‘down the road’ for later re-argument and/or deferring decisions until a full Court sits. As CJ Rehnquist once observed (reflecting upon his own tenure), ‘An Associate Justice can sing discordant (dissenting) tunes all term long, but a Chief Justice has to produce results (definitive case law).’ No wonder CJ Roberts has chronic headaches.
The next President will probably have an opportunity to backfill three (3) SCOTUS seats, above and beyond Scalia’s seat. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer will almost certainly retire in the next four years. Since both John Roberts, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito still have many remaining miles left on them, as do Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, I could envision a consistent (new) SCOTUS majority of 6-3 being formed which would endure for at least a decade.
Interestingly, such a realignment would seriously challenge CJ Roberts who, though he is certifiably Conservative, has already shown a willingness to ‘buck the Tide’ of right-wing ideological fervor. The Chief Justice gets to assign writing of a SCOTUS opinion only when he is voting with the majority. Otherwise, the Opinion of the Court is assigned by the senior Justice in the majority. I could easily see CJ Roberts ‘evolving' over time into a more moderate, consensus-building Chief Justice, much the way Earl Warren once did.
The next President will probably have an opportunity to backfill three (3) SCOTUS seats, above and beyond Scalia’s seat. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer will almost certainly retire in the next four years. Since both John Roberts, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito still have many remaining miles left on them, as do Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, I could envision a consistent (new) SCOTUS majority of 6-3 being formed which would endure for at least a decade.
Interestingly, such a realignment would seriously challenge CJ Roberts who, though he is certifiably Conservative, has already shown a willingness to ‘buck the Tide’ of right-wing ideological fervor. The Chief Justice gets to assign writing of a SCOTUS opinion only when he is voting with the majority. Otherwise, the Opinion of the Court is assigned by the senior Justice in the majority. I could easily see CJ Roberts ‘evolving' over time into a more moderate, consensus-building Chief Justice, much the way Earl Warren once did.
1
Good news for teachers who are consider teaching as organized labor -- not a profession.
Bad news for those who care about public education, including teachers who want to be a professional judged by merit and commitment, not seniority-based compensation and career advancement.
I've two children going through public education. My conclusion after several years of studying the system is that the two biggest problems in public education (at least in my part of NorCal) are parental apathy and the lack of accountability of teachers hiding behind union protection.
Bad news for those who care about public education, including teachers who want to be a professional judged by merit and commitment, not seniority-based compensation and career advancement.
I've two children going through public education. My conclusion after several years of studying the system is that the two biggest problems in public education (at least in my part of NorCal) are parental apathy and the lack of accountability of teachers hiding behind union protection.
It's an empty fantasy that teachers are professionals.
A professional is a highly educated individual who enjoys a wide degree of latitude to decide how he or she will do his or her work.
While some teachers meet the first requirement, no teacher below the college level meets the second. Both curricula and methodology are largely decided at the district level and handed down to teachers.
Teachers are cognitive workers, but not professionals.
A professional is a highly educated individual who enjoys a wide degree of latitude to decide how he or she will do his or her work.
While some teachers meet the first requirement, no teacher below the college level meets the second. Both curricula and methodology are largely decided at the district level and handed down to teachers.
Teachers are cognitive workers, but not professionals.
1
Public employee unions are a cancer, and must be eliminated as soon as possible.
If this dreadful "publication" actually did its job and wrote a research piece showing, say in NYC alone, how much money was being spent on illegal aliens, there would be an uprising.
If it were to do the same on how much more public union employees earn over the diminishing private sector ones, there would likely also be an uprising.
For those sceeching that rather than reduce the benefits/salaries of public workers, the US should improve those in the private sector - with asian, south american and european workers competing for jobs that once solely belonged to the US, you will NEVER be able to unionize the private sector workforce again. Companies will move operations/offices overseas, and union shops will be closed wholesale.
To ask a middle class workforce to continue to pay ever increasing taxes so that their fellow citizens in public sector jobs can have lavish benefits, infinite job security, massive pensions, easy/steady hours, and early retirements with lifetime free/highly subsidized healthcare, is lunacy and will lead to an uprising, possibly even sooner than the inevitable one against illegals.
The middle and working classes are not going to accept waves of illegals coming into the country collecting welfare and benefits right away while they are suffering for much longer, and they are not going to accept public union employees being lavished with luxurious benefits either.
If this dreadful "publication" actually did its job and wrote a research piece showing, say in NYC alone, how much money was being spent on illegal aliens, there would be an uprising.
If it were to do the same on how much more public union employees earn over the diminishing private sector ones, there would likely also be an uprising.
For those sceeching that rather than reduce the benefits/salaries of public workers, the US should improve those in the private sector - with asian, south american and european workers competing for jobs that once solely belonged to the US, you will NEVER be able to unionize the private sector workforce again. Companies will move operations/offices overseas, and union shops will be closed wholesale.
To ask a middle class workforce to continue to pay ever increasing taxes so that their fellow citizens in public sector jobs can have lavish benefits, infinite job security, massive pensions, easy/steady hours, and early retirements with lifetime free/highly subsidized healthcare, is lunacy and will lead to an uprising, possibly even sooner than the inevitable one against illegals.
The middle and working classes are not going to accept waves of illegals coming into the country collecting welfare and benefits right away while they are suffering for much longer, and they are not going to accept public union employees being lavished with luxurious benefits either.
1
How about the teachers unions start contributing to college funds for all the kids they are cheating out of good educations because of their selfish and indefensible tenure demands.
1
Great idea. Why don't you get going on that initiative?
1
I'm curious if this has McConnell wondering at all...
There are a few people arguing that non dues paying employees getting Union benefits are free-loading just like welfare recipients.
The analogy is false.
Employees getting Union benefits are not free-loading if they are not seeking those benefits. You can't force a benefit on someone and then accuse them of freeloading. That's ridiculous.
As an aside, welfare recipients are not free loaders either unless they are gaming the system. As a society, we have decide to take care of people genuinely in need of assistance.
The analogy is false.
Employees getting Union benefits are not free-loading if they are not seeking those benefits. You can't force a benefit on someone and then accuse them of freeloading. That's ridiculous.
As an aside, welfare recipients are not free loaders either unless they are gaming the system. As a society, we have decide to take care of people genuinely in need of assistance.
2
Even if a new justice had been approved by the Senate said justice would not have been able to vote on this case without having heard the arguments back in January. A temporary judge would have also been excluded from the vote. This is how our Constitution works. Scalia dies, unions win. That's America. The best policy is to fill a vacancy on the Court without delay, not stall, hoping that the next president will appoint a justice you favor. That said, as much as many of us loath the obstructionist politics of the Republicans over the past 7+ years, obstructionism is American as apple pie and can be found in things like filibusters, ad hominem attacks and bully real-estate-developer politicians with a penchant for reaching the mob in the hearts of Americans.
California needs a new law stipulating that teachers who refuse to join unions and contribute the same dues as union members, are no longer subject to the terms of the union contract, and must henceforth negotiate their own individual employment contracts. Let's see how that plays out.
Until now, the Roberts court was nothing more than the judicial branch of the US Chamber of Commerce.
3
For all of you complaining. why do I have to pay taxes to provide fire and police protection for tax-free churches I don't agree with?
2
When the Supreme Court divides on critical cases, the decisions of the lower court stand. As long as the Court is likely to divide on controversial cases, we will see the law of important matters divided by region. Those regions that have liberal circuit courts will have liberal precedent and vice versa. Voting rights cases and abortion cases are likely to be pro-Republican in the South and parts of the West. Criminal rights and religious issues are likely to be pro-Democrat along the coasts. The "law of the land" will be divided. Gridlock has just extended its influence from Congress to the courts.
In NYS there are two fees you pay. First is your union dues that cover negotiations, and salaries for union officials etc, this is a required fee. Second is a political activity fee, which is optional.
NYS has it right, you don't accept a teaching job in a union school then complain about the union fees. The union negotiates your salary, benefits and working conditions. You do have a right to decline paying for political activity.
If you don't want to pay union fees, by all means, go work in a charter school or religious school and negotiate your own salary and benefits. Salaries there are about half what public schools pay and benefits are equally lacking.
NYS has it right, you don't accept a teaching job in a union school then complain about the union fees. The union negotiates your salary, benefits and working conditions. You do have a right to decline paying for political activity.
If you don't want to pay union fees, by all means, go work in a charter school or religious school and negotiate your own salary and benefits. Salaries there are about half what public schools pay and benefits are equally lacking.
6
Thank you Sen. McConnell for giving Unions this victory!
7
I live in the county where the teachers first started this suit. First of all, CA teachers can opt out of the fees but they still have to pay fair share fees. Those fair share fees are equivalent to what dues would be, but would go to an organizations that benefits children or children's diseases. The organizations are picked by their local chapter. However, teacher choosing that lose their rights to representation if they are sued as well as financial compensation as a result of a lawsuit that does not involve criminal charges. These teachers chose to make all teachers opt in rather than they opt out. They do not have to join a CTA but it seems they have no problems accepting benefits and compensation improvements bargained locally as well as credential and retirement improvements done at the state level. Finally joining a PAC for education requires a separate monetary donation that is not part of the regular fees and dues.
6
The weakening of unions by the likes of Scott 'Koch' Walker are a big contributor to the income inequality crisis we find our selves in now. Unions have faults, sure, but are necessary to protect workers. 60 minutes had the piece this week about the women who made 7.20 an hour, and couldn't afford cancer treatment, or even food. pathetic. enough said. Unions need to make a strong return and this is a welcome reversal of recent decisions and political moves
1
The sword cuts both ways.
2
Thank you, Mitch!
1
As my wife, who's had experience in NYC hotel labor relations, likes to say, "The only thing worse than having unions, would be not having unions."
12
Thank you Mitch and Orrin. You deserve a hand.
14
How's that obstructionist thing working out for ya, Mitch?
18
If McConnell hadn't blocked court appointments this case would likely have been decided pro-union by the court. As it stands, public unions in most of the states where they are under attack are still under attack. This is a Pyrrhic victory, at best.
You can't scare me I'm stickin' to the Union!
11
There are a few people arguing that non dues paying employees getting Union benefits are free-loading just like welfare recipients.
The analogy is false.
Employees getting Union benefits are not free-loading if they are not seeking those benefits. You can't force a benefit on someone and then accuse them of freeloading. That's ridiculous.
As an aside, welfare recipients are not free-loading either, unless they are taking advantage of the system. As a society, we have decided to take care of people in genuine need of assistance.
The analogy is false.
Employees getting Union benefits are not free-loading if they are not seeking those benefits. You can't force a benefit on someone and then accuse them of freeloading. That's ridiculous.
As an aside, welfare recipients are not free-loading either, unless they are taking advantage of the system. As a society, we have decided to take care of people in genuine need of assistance.
3
The correct word would be hypocrite, Steven, for one who pretends they don't receive or need any benefits from the entire world history of unionized labor while working at a job that has union-negotiated pay, time-off, protections and other employee benefits.
Other words would be clueless, self-hating, masochistic, out-to-lunch and/or best friends with the 0.1%.
Other words would be clueless, self-hating, masochistic, out-to-lunch and/or best friends with the 0.1%.
6
I'd like to see the possible freeloaders give back their raises with your twisted logic. "Ain't never gonna happen".
1
Benefits like higher salaries, retirement funds and healthcare coverage? Are you seriously suggesting that these need to be forced on people?
1
It will return. Common sense dictates that you should not be compelled to pay money used for the purpose of others making political statements or taking political positions with which you disagree. Overturning Citizens United would help, as it would set the stage for barring all political speech by unions.
1
If Citizens United is overruled and results in allowing regulation of political spending (read legal bribery) by the rich and corporations, I'll take that deal.
1
Common sense, actually, sYs that you find out what you're talking about before you sound off.
1. Agency fees--which is what this case was about--are regular dues minus the cost of lobbying.
2. Nobody is required to pay unions a thin dime. If your org is "agency fee," and employees vote on this, you can donate the fee to a designated charity. And deduct it on your taxes.
3. Unions that want to support candidates must form a PAC, and may not use dues or fees to support them: they have to fund it separately.
1. Agency fees--which is what this case was about--are regular dues minus the cost of lobbying.
2. Nobody is required to pay unions a thin dime. If your org is "agency fee," and employees vote on this, you can donate the fee to a designated charity. And deduct it on your taxes.
3. Unions that want to support candidates must form a PAC, and may not use dues or fees to support them: they have to fund it separately.
1
You're right which is why no union dues are ever used for political support. There is a separate PAC which union members may donate to. I do, gladly, because i support politicians who value unions.
1
Here's a hearty thanks to that hot new band: Mitch McConnell & The Obstructionists. Thanks, boys, keep on using those checkers in the chess game; you'll do just fine...
10
I guess you've not heard about what happens to Texas' abortion restrictions in the event of a 4-4 tie ...
Oh, that will be sweet, Titian. Here's hoping!
We need stronger private sector unions, and weaker public sector unions. However, the precedent-setting nature of this case makes me glad for the result.
However, the types of people who want to benefit from collective bargaining without paying for it are just rationalizing short sighted selfishness. I doubt they are all special snowflakes whose success is being constrained by the equity of collective bargaining. This result saves them from themselves.
However, the types of people who want to benefit from collective bargaining without paying for it are just rationalizing short sighted selfishness. I doubt they are all special snowflakes whose success is being constrained by the equity of collective bargaining. This result saves them from themselves.
3
A woman is free to chose an abortion, but not free to chose to pay for a union nor free to chose whether to have/not have healthcare.
Hmmmm........
Hmmmm........
1
But also not free to drive without a license or to refuse to pay taxes. The balance between social policy and individual choice is complex and certainly the balance is on a spectrum. The ability of unions to survive, or shared health systems for that matter depends on the pool of interested parties to participate
Right, and I'm sure you are very concerned about women's rights--honestly get real.
1
Nobody has to pay union dues at all, and even fees may be donated to a charity rather than a union. As for health INSURANCE, you can always refuse to cough up the dough, and instead pay the penalty that covers about half of the average yearly tab that the rest of us get stuck with paying.
In other words, you still have the right to be a mooch.
In other words, you still have the right to be a mooch.
If my memory serves me right Ronald Reagan did everything he could to destroy unions but they held on for the American worker. George Bush not only tried to kill unions but with the help of the far right media convinced a lot of people it was un-American to even suggest workers had rights. He then allowed corporations to export jobs by the millions while destroying the economy year by year until September of 2008 brought the worst recession since the Great Depression. Even after destroying the economy the GOP still wanted to shut down the Big Three auto makers telling Americans they would never succeed with unions, which has proven to be wrong. The only GOP authority left to put the nail in coffin for the American worker was the Supreme Court. The conservatives have held the court to long and it is time for a change. A change that just might put Americans first.
14
The phrase "poetic justice" comes to mind...
17
A GREAT DAY FOR AMERICA!
I'm throwing a party and everyone is invited!
I'm throwing a party and everyone is invited!
8
And when unions use those coerced union dues to contribute massive amounts of money to Dem candidates who then negotiate lavish contacts for union workers, that's okay too. Because money that flows to Dem candidates is not a problem in politics. And it's worked well in Illinois and Connecticut...those lavish public sector union contracts are pushing blue states towards bankruptcy.....
Union members who object to the use of the portion of their dues that go to political purposes are allowed a refund of that portion of their dues. They can then use that portion to support the candidate/party of their choice
It is ILLEGAL to use regular dues, or agency fees, to support political candidates, and has been for thirty years and more.
So if you know anybody's really doing this, call the cops.
So if you know anybody's really doing this, call the cops.
What better way to demonstrate to the electorate the damage a conservative majority on SCOTUS would be to labor relations and civil rights. There's no doubt what Scalia's "constitutional purity" vote would have been. Constitutional Purity is nothing more than code for rolling back the last half century of liberal civil and voting rights decisions. Just as lethal to minorities as lead poisoned water.
15
And it is neither Pure nor Constitutional.
Google the article "The Incoherence of Antonin Scalia" by conservative federal appeals judge and legal scholar Richard Posner.
Google the article "The Incoherence of Antonin Scalia" by conservative federal appeals judge and legal scholar Richard Posner.
I suspect the Republicans figured they were going to loose this one anyway if Garland had been confirmed. This certainly is a big issue for the likes of Scott Walker and John Kasich who have spent invested a lot of their political capital to defeat unions. Heck Scott Walker wanted to make sure that public employed janitors lived in poverty like private employed ones.
17
This was the case that I was most upset about when I heard about Scalia's death. Oh how I wish he was still around to have pushed these unions off a cliff.
3
And I am equally happy that he is not.
3
Not enough poverty for you yet?
4
Be careful. those that go off the cliff may take you with them.
4
Maybe the GOP doesn't care if another justice is EVER appointed under a Dem president. Maybe they don't care about 4-4 cases, and all the lower court cases will stand.
People think "just wait until Clinton or Sanders is President," but why would that change the GOP's behavior? They will not confirm anyone, for example, who believes women must have a right to an abortion.
People think "just wait until Clinton or Sanders is President," but why would that change the GOP's behavior? They will not confirm anyone, for example, who believes women must have a right to an abortion.
12
Since this case was argued prior to Scalia's death, would not be his notes on this thoughts about this?
As long as Scalia is underground and cannot verbalize his opinions, who cares what his papers say?
@Sam Orez,
Does a dead SCOTUS judge get a vote?
3-29-16@2:37 pm
Does a dead SCOTUS judge get a vote?
3-29-16@2:37 pm
1
There is no mystery as to how Scalia would have voted.
Well, Mitch McConnell, how about a full court press? Nice job helping your side.
12
To the Republicans, you just got hoisted by your own petards. Who says no "good" deed goes unpunished?
21
Scalia's right-wing handlers are probably now regretting that they didn't order the man to lay off the meatballs and other high-calorie foods as he approached the age of 80. Scalia would have turned 80 on March 11, but clearly overweight people usually don't get to become octogenarians of the union-destroying or any other kind.
9
The rise of Bernie Sanders tells us that some people are sick and tired of being governed by billionaires. Perhaps they, and other Americans who are realizing that the economy is rigged against them, will now realize that the billionaires hate unions and have spent many billions trying to destroy them. Perhaps these people will now catch on to the fact that billionaires hate unions because they help prevent the billionaires from turning workers into slaves. Without unions, workers have no voice in the way they are paid or managed.
If, on the other hand, one hates governance by corporation, one might consider supporting unions in legislation and in court.
If, on the other hand, one hates governance by corporation, one might consider supporting unions in legislation and in court.
47
Maybe the GOP Senate will now beg Obama to submit his nominee post-haste.
13
But no. The GOP's 'leaders' like Mitch McConnell are exercising their Constitutional right to obstruct the essential functions of the system of government contemplated By the drafters. They are following the advice provided to the GOP by many noted scholars of Constitutional Law, such as Cliven and Ammon Bundy, Rush Limbaugh and Donald Trump.
The cliche has been flogged to death by now, but it remains as true as ever: "you can't fix stupid."
The cliche has been flogged to death by now, but it remains as true as ever: "you can't fix stupid."
A principled Republican would never ask Obama for anything. The name of the game has been to cast doubt on the President as a leader and destroy the Presidency. As a result of their success, they have Trump to deal with.
A few years ago, the day the Supreme Court affirmed the Affordable Care Act, I was on a bus reading about it on my phone. Two septuagenarians looking over my shoulder saw what I was reading and asked about the outcome. When I told them one said "I'm going to church and making a donation and thanking the lord." I feel the same way about this decision. A 1977 precedent rules.
What would be next? People refusing to pay for seat belts in cars? Defunding of health inspectors in factories and restaurants? Actually, that one is on a few Republican agendas...
What would be next? People refusing to pay for seat belts in cars? Defunding of health inspectors in factories and restaurants? Actually, that one is on a few Republican agendas...
26
Perhaps there could be a two-tier system. Unions do the bargaining and the benefits and raises they achieve would be available only to union members. The rest of the workers would have to do what everyone would do if there were no unions -- bargain one by one.
20
I think that is what the SCOTUS just decided upon.
I've seen the ugly side of unions and an even uglier side to not having one. When I worked for a city agency I watched people take advantage of the union benefits. Some coworkers would create artificial backlogs and then accrue comp-time by coming in early or staying late to work on these fabled backlogs. I wouldn't let a few bad seeds spoil you on the whole system though. Without having a union I've fared far, far worse. My job is predominantly 10-99 work and each piece of work is sourced via an agency. The agencies who dominate the field often barter away my wages though because if they won't, clients will take their business elsewhere. What keeps me up at night is how the city is complicit. I was confronted one time about an honest agency's practice from a city attorney. I cited for the city attorney the Federal law that placed the agency in the right but he didn't care - he was going to go back to using the agencies that effectively stole skilled workers' wages because at the end of the day, it was cheaper for him.
In this part of the country, it's a race to the bottom in the free market. If you got rid of your union do you trust that the system replacing it will be the best or the cheapest?
In this part of the country, it's a race to the bottom in the free market. If you got rid of your union do you trust that the system replacing it will be the best or the cheapest?
32
All of this makes the Republican Senators blocking of Merrick Garland rather petulant and stupid, right? And to all of those people who refused to listen to VPOTUS Joe Biden's talk before the Georgetown law School on the function of the Supreme Court, Biden's comments are so spot-on correct. Republicans have introduced a new low into the overall dysfunctionality of government and the three branches.
Yes, the SCOTUS matters immensely in adjudicating law and establishing precedent. Senate Republicans who are parading around and uttering the drivel - like Grassley has done so recently - ought to be ashamed of their conduct, but they will not be so, feeling totally immune to the consequences of their poor behavior.
Yes, the SCOTUS matters immensely in adjudicating law and establishing precedent. Senate Republicans who are parading around and uttering the drivel - like Grassley has done so recently - ought to be ashamed of their conduct, but they will not be so, feeling totally immune to the consequences of their poor behavior.
43
Oh how I wish they could feel immune. What is wrong with voters?
Without public service unions, teachers may find themselves replaced by the unqualified. The classroom is not Sunday School.
Grassley is not immune if the good people of Iowa go to the polls in large numbers to vote him out in November
Strong workers and industrial trade unions are the real back bone of workers . Governments can be easily bought by the Billionaire class because the politicians and the billionaires study in the same school and are mates and chums and work on old boys net work.Those who are not can be bought by massively funding their elections . But its not that easy to deal with industrial workers trade unions. They are people and belong to the people and PEOPLE CANNOT BE BOUGHT BY THE MONEY BAGS. Trade union bosses could be influenced with money to some extend but then the members could detect it and see through them . The poor can smell another poor better than the rich can smell the poor. Point being made is that like the middle class is the back bone of society , strong empowered trade unions can rein in the excesses of the business corporations whom Government with all their might cannot rein in.
And , educated ordinary-class teachers should know it better . Then how was it that of all people teachers attempted to cut the branch they were sitting on inviting on them the tyranny of the billionaire class. Trade unions might have its own internal politics and internal strife , conflicts and differences of opinion especially if its run in a democratic way and might have its own weaknesses but still having a strong trade union contributes to the health and wealth of the 99%. the 1% super rich are the only losers . Don't fall for their connivances. Build a strong trade union.
And , educated ordinary-class teachers should know it better . Then how was it that of all people teachers attempted to cut the branch they were sitting on inviting on them the tyranny of the billionaire class. Trade unions might have its own internal politics and internal strife , conflicts and differences of opinion especially if its run in a democratic way and might have its own weaknesses but still having a strong trade union contributes to the health and wealth of the 99%. the 1% super rich are the only losers . Don't fall for their connivances. Build a strong trade union.
20
For the teachers that brought the original suit, who is paying for the hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees? I'm sure it is not the teachers themselves.
This suit will just be repackaged in a different district and will reappear as an effort by conservatives to return to 19th century jurisprudence. Back then, the 14th Amendment was used to rationalize all sorts of economic harm in the pursuit of "liberty" and "freedom."
Labor may get lucky this fall, however, if Clinton manages to be elected over a tidal wave of opposition from the Right. Then again, that assumes a functioning Senate that will accept a Democratic president and approve judicial appointments. Good luck with that.
That this case even exists at the level of the Supreme Court demonstrates once again the rot that moneyed interests foster upon our political system.
This suit will just be repackaged in a different district and will reappear as an effort by conservatives to return to 19th century jurisprudence. Back then, the 14th Amendment was used to rationalize all sorts of economic harm in the pursuit of "liberty" and "freedom."
Labor may get lucky this fall, however, if Clinton manages to be elected over a tidal wave of opposition from the Right. Then again, that assumes a functioning Senate that will accept a Democratic president and approve judicial appointments. Good luck with that.
That this case even exists at the level of the Supreme Court demonstrates once again the rot that moneyed interests foster upon our political system.
25
A win for the public sector unions -- very good. The people who are more than happy to take the pay and benefits won by the unions via collective bargaining but who don't want to pay union dues or a fee in support of union activity on the behalf of employees are true weasels.
They are like members of Congress and the public who are all for invading other countries and starting wars but have no intention of putting themselves or their family members in harms way.
They are like members of Congress and the public who are all for invading other countries and starting wars but have no intention of putting themselves or their family members in harms way.
26
I agree. If they don't want to pay for collective bargaining let them work without the protections and benefits. If you don't agree with your union's politics you're free to vote accordingly.
Did you enjoy the time you had off, last weekend? That was brought to you by Organized Labor.
107
Labor day is in September. Last weekend was Memorial day.
So any decision that goes 4-4 is like no decision at all. Thanks Mitch McConnell, for spreading the political constipation that you created in the Senate to yet another branch of government.
38
In the old days, we called them "union dues". Now they call them fees. I like the old words. Everyone knows what you're talking about when you say
" union dues". I almost finished the article before I knew what the disputed
"fees" were. By the way, I didn't pay union dues but I did profit from the union's efforts. At least I'll admit to that. Many still think they hit a triple and deserve praise if they cross the plate.
" union dues". I almost finished the article before I knew what the disputed
"fees" were. By the way, I didn't pay union dues but I did profit from the union's efforts. At least I'll admit to that. Many still think they hit a triple and deserve praise if they cross the plate.
8
It is because dues and fees are different, and fees are about 70% of dues.
And sorry, but you ought to do something to make up for what you took and dis not help pay for.
And sorry, but you ought to do something to make up for what you took and dis not help pay for.
I'm afraid you're incorrect. I pay "Dues". I have been a union member for 30 years and it's always been dues.
Oh, you can't bust me, I'm working for the union. Working for the union, 'til the day I die.
20
The shame is that Scalia's vote, in fact the vote of all the Court members, could be accurately predicted on the basis of political leaning, without regard to the rules for interpreting legislation that are taught in law school.
By the way, what is taught in law school: Law or Political Indoctrination? Only the latter would seem to be preparation for high judicial office.
By the way, what is taught in law school: Law or Political Indoctrination? Only the latter would seem to be preparation for high judicial office.
20
A huge victory for the politicians who sell their souls to the unions.
9
I think you mean a huge defeat for the politicians who sold their souls to the Koch brothers.
Unions aren't perfect, but at least they aren't trying to destroy the middle class.
Unions aren't perfect, but at least they aren't trying to destroy the middle class.
1
Oh really? I was thinking it was a win for workers. But I guess I live in the real world.
1
I think you mean a huge defeat for the politicians who sold their souls to the Koch brothers.
Unions aren't perfect, but at least they aren't trying to destroy the middle class.
Unions aren't perfect, but at least they aren't trying to destroy the middle class.
Fair is fair; those who reject unions should not pay dues, but should also not accept the benefits.
21
Does that mean they no would no longer have vacations and a 40 hour work week?
22
I purposely used the verb "should" rather than "would"
If the 40 hour work week and vacations are benefits brought about through union bargaining let me ask you to answer your own question before I make the attempt.
It isn't my intent to be unreasonable and the remark I made was not intended to be rhetorical. If unions bring no benefit there is no reason for their existence. If however they have, as it appears, made a difference in working conditions, pay scales and health care they should be supported by those who benefit. If however those who benefit do not want to accept the responsibility of support then why should they expect to receive the benefits which are the result of those who do?
No such thing as a free lunch, you have to buy the beer to wash it down..
Simply makes sense to me. No other reason.
Like the court, a judgement call.
If the 40 hour work week and vacations are benefits brought about through union bargaining let me ask you to answer your own question before I make the attempt.
It isn't my intent to be unreasonable and the remark I made was not intended to be rhetorical. If unions bring no benefit there is no reason for their existence. If however they have, as it appears, made a difference in working conditions, pay scales and health care they should be supported by those who benefit. If however those who benefit do not want to accept the responsibility of support then why should they expect to receive the benefits which are the result of those who do?
No such thing as a free lunch, you have to buy the beer to wash it down..
Simply makes sense to me. No other reason.
Like the court, a judgement call.
It is called "cutting off your nose to spite your face"!
8
If you are concerned about the growing gap between the rich and the poor, you want teachers to have the benefits that a union gives them, like a living wage and a set of rules that govern performance evaluations.
10
What a laugh. Teachers in my public school district average $110,000 in salary and another $45K in benefits annually, all for working less than 8 months a year. And try firing one of them without an act of God. The teachers union makes its members bullet proof, despite the fact that White Plains students score at barely the 50th percentile in standardized state tests.
1
Agency fee is the right way to go in a Union. Does every American negotiate their own peace deal with other countries?
6
Wow this is so great! Unions get to keep bullying employees and stealing their money to jam into their corrupt coffers, benefitting big fat union bosses while delivering next to nothing to their members and crippling state and local government until everywhere turns into Detroit!
So exciting! So just!
So exciting! So just!
4
Are you a Koch brother or just one of their paid letter writers? The Koch brothers hate unions because they give workers a bigger piece of the earnings pie. Propaganda by billionaires have nearly killed unions in the US. Workers will suffer until they catch on to the fact that killing unions is one of the ways the economy is rigged against them.
28
What do you think happens to workers when there are no unions? Would that be better?
As the article notes. the Supreme Court decision sets no new precedent. There was nothing stopping any or all of the Justices from writing opinions that would have explained their reasoning. Such opinions would be instructive to the lower courts. Plaintiffs can raise this issue in any lower court that hasn't decided it. The strongest teachers' unions are in New York, which creates an incentive to file there. The New York courts have next to no guidance about how to decide such a case. A loss in New York would be monumental. The 8 sitting justices are still paid full salary. This case was important. Writing opinions to influence possible future lower court decisions wouldn't be a wash. If the pro-union opinion were more persuasive that could tip the balance in New York. Not writing opinions abandons this issue to chance.
3
The case merely tells us again that Supreme Court Justices are all about politics.
6
Either you have a Union or you don't. If you do, any benefit that is gained by the employees goes to all employees. Why should a few opt out of paying dues and reap the benefits?
35
Amazing the power of 1 life in a country of 320 million! Amazing the power of 1 vacancy on the $upreme Court! Today a 4-4 Court gave workers a good thing. Next time a 4-4 Court may not as a tie will allow a bad lower court decision to stand. But today are hearts are glad!
The Republicans have got themselves into a real pickle after too many years of overreach & obstruction. The highest court in the land is about to make a swing to the left & America will be better for it. McConnell must choose between Obama's centrist nominee or one more to my liking chosen next January. Either way, we win & McConnell loses!
Cuss Unions all you want, workers represented by Unions are always better off than the rest of us working slobs. Pick up a 1940s phone book from your area & be amazed at how many Unions there used to be. Those Union workers had better jobs than working at Wal-Mart. They could eventually purchase a good car, a decent home, send their kids to college & prepare for a comfortable retirement.
Today my 2 recent college graduates are struggling to find a job that's good enough to keep the lights on in their tiny apartments. After a almost 2 years search our youngest just found a decent job, but the oldest girl is barely scraping by with several part time jobs. We're confident she'll make it but finding a good job in the US is mighty hard to do since the US doesn't make things anymore.
To the Oligarchs, Everything! For the rest of us, Crumbs. We stand with Rebecca too!
The Republicans have got themselves into a real pickle after too many years of overreach & obstruction. The highest court in the land is about to make a swing to the left & America will be better for it. McConnell must choose between Obama's centrist nominee or one more to my liking chosen next January. Either way, we win & McConnell loses!
Cuss Unions all you want, workers represented by Unions are always better off than the rest of us working slobs. Pick up a 1940s phone book from your area & be amazed at how many Unions there used to be. Those Union workers had better jobs than working at Wal-Mart. They could eventually purchase a good car, a decent home, send their kids to college & prepare for a comfortable retirement.
Today my 2 recent college graduates are struggling to find a job that's good enough to keep the lights on in their tiny apartments. After a almost 2 years search our youngest just found a decent job, but the oldest girl is barely scraping by with several part time jobs. We're confident she'll make it but finding a good job in the US is mighty hard to do since the US doesn't make things anymore.
To the Oligarchs, Everything! For the rest of us, Crumbs. We stand with Rebecca too!
25
How did Republicans think this would play out? We need a functioning Supreme Court. We need nine justices. Plugging their ears and screaming "la-la-la can't hear you!" doesn't change our Constitution or assist Republicans in their repeated attempts to subvert the will of the people.
The new SCOTUS will never be as conservative as it was when Scalia was alive. Guess what? Neither will the electorate. Get over it, do your jobs.
The new SCOTUS will never be as conservative as it was when Scalia was alive. Guess what? Neither will the electorate. Get over it, do your jobs.
10
An evenly split court may not be able to help us move forward but it can certainly keep us from being dragged backwards.
10
Not if the ruling below favored the right wing. Those decisions will stand also in the event of a 4-4 split.
No room for you ant-union free riders or more commonly known as free loaders. UNION YES!!
14
God must be a fan of collective bargaining!
The worm has turned. Proletarians to horse.
2
Thank you, Mitch McConnell.
10
There is a reason that corporations work diligently to prevent their shop from being unionized. They hire specialists, they train all supervision in the evils of unions.
Such magnanimity. BALONEY! They understand that a unionized workforce has the collective power to influence wages and working conditions for the "average worker".
The CEO might only make $8 mil a year versus $12mil. The salary warp is bad enough today, without this ruliing the.01% would only make more while you and I continue with flat or lower wages, or no job at all.
Such magnanimity. BALONEY! They understand that a unionized workforce has the collective power to influence wages and working conditions for the "average worker".
The CEO might only make $8 mil a year versus $12mil. The salary warp is bad enough today, without this ruliing the.01% would only make more while you and I continue with flat or lower wages, or no job at all.
16
Typical teachers, who have the one advantage over most other workers, unionization, and they are loath to pay for it. Here on Long Island they have a stranglehold on property owners and we can't do a thing about it. All you hear on the news is how underpaid they are.
Not here! We all pay through the nose for really sub-standard performance, constant complaints, tenure, Summers off, and boo hoo, they have to pay a little to get a dream job.
Not here! We all pay through the nose for really sub-standard performance, constant complaints, tenure, Summers off, and boo hoo, they have to pay a little to get a dream job.
6
If you think teaching is a dream job, I suggest you apply for it. There are teacher shortages all over the place. I guess those who have tried it didn't find that job so dreamy.
As for financing education through property tax, that probably is a really bad idea. Perhaps you should work for tax reform in your area.
As for financing education through property tax, that probably is a really bad idea. Perhaps you should work for tax reform in your area.
7
Mr. rant, it is only a tiny number of teachers who agree with you, and were handed legal support by orgs that agree with you, who brought this suit.
2
You can write your comment because someone taught you how.
2
I think most teachers hate unions, I know I do. If school boards and management would do their job right, there wouldn't be a need for them. People could afford to raise a family on wages. Tenure wouldn't be needed. But then, it is obvious that the need for unions exist because it seems that school boards apply raw capitalism to teachers and management doesn't support them like they should.
9
Absolutely untrue. YOU may be a teacher who hates unions (I'm unclear by your post) but I am a 30 year Public School teacher, union member and I love my union. In my district, over 325 teachers and only 1 "fair share" member. I'd say we're pretty happy with our union.
1
It doesn't look like SCOTUS will be able to throw our presidential election this year way they did in 2000.
32
Gosh, there are more benefits to this blockage of the Obama appointment than I realized! Good work Republicans!
2
It appears that the four male corporate catholic justices on OUR United States Supreme Court have closed minds and intend to continue to try to curtail democracy in America. They do not belong on a pedestal. The American public has lost faith in the third branch of OUR government - the branch that was meant to PROTECT us from overreach by any political and ideological attacks like the ones OUR democracy is experiencing today by conservative and religious money masters. WE must DEMAND that obstructionist republicans CONFIRM Judge Garland to OUR United States Supreme Court to put balance back into the highest court in the land.
10
It's pretty balanced today. That's what you object to, isn't it? You want a liberal majority, no?
1
Take that, Mitch McConnell. See where your obstructionist policy is taking you.
7
Split decisions can also result from a court member recusing themselves from a case because of a conflict of interest. Scalia famously did not do that in several cases (for instance, in the Cheney energy task force case or the University of Kansas Law School case) when he should have. Now a higher power (and the obstructionist Republicans) have recused him for the remainder of this term and a good bit of the next. Gotta love those "free-dumb" Republicans.
Not having a ninth member on the Supreme Court for the remainder of this term is predicted, on balance, to favor more progressive rulings. The lower court ruling will stand in split decisions.
As for this decision, it does make sense that if you benefit from union representation you should pay something towards that end. if you don't want to pay dues, you are free to choose another job.
This is America after all - land of the free - where you are free to die in the street if you don't have health insurance, you're free to not attend college if you don't belong to the middle or upper-middle class (plus our society offers such lousy public schools in low income areas you would likely not get in to begin with), you are free to watch your job shipped overseas because one party in particular values business interests above all else or we might borrow the phrase "profit over people", you are free to have BIG government intervene in your personal reproductive choices, etc, etc.
Not having a ninth member on the Supreme Court for the remainder of this term is predicted, on balance, to favor more progressive rulings. The lower court ruling will stand in split decisions.
As for this decision, it does make sense that if you benefit from union representation you should pay something towards that end. if you don't want to pay dues, you are free to choose another job.
This is America after all - land of the free - where you are free to die in the street if you don't have health insurance, you're free to not attend college if you don't belong to the middle or upper-middle class (plus our society offers such lousy public schools in low income areas you would likely not get in to begin with), you are free to watch your job shipped overseas because one party in particular values business interests above all else or we might borrow the phrase "profit over people", you are free to have BIG government intervene in your personal reproductive choices, etc, etc.
14
My, my… if a union negotiates for you better wages, sick leave, vacations, healthcare, and supplies you with legal representation when the company you work for wants to punish you with a disciplinary layoff, place you in a lower paying position or terminate you – most employees are all but totally ignorant of their labor rights under the law – you actually think that paying a modest monthly fee for those services is somehow infringing on your [right(s)?] to get something for nothing?
I suppose you want your local automobile dealership to give you a brand new automobile every year too! Now that Scalia is sleeping with the fishes, where he belongs, perhaps we will have a more rational, reality based, and precedent based court… this is a small step, but a good start.
I suppose you want your local automobile dealership to give you a brand new automobile every year too! Now that Scalia is sleeping with the fishes, where he belongs, perhaps we will have a more rational, reality based, and precedent based court… this is a small step, but a good start.
24
Oh, is this what it means? Okay, Mitch McConnell! You've got the right idea!
4
People forget that Unions are democratic entities too. If you don't like the political positions of the Union that represents you, you can join the Union, debate and vote in support of your own ideas, and you might succeed in changing the political alignment of your Union. If you simply refuse to participate in the democratic process, you should not be exempted from paying the fees. It's just like having to pay your federal taxes even if you don't vote in the presidential election.
15
The real question is, why were these teachers not members of the union in the first place? Why do people willfully avoid their collective bargaining power? Well, obviously just to avoid paying union dues. Basically, they were just trying to freeload on the union benefits without chipping in their fair share.
38
A 5-4 decision overruling the Circuit Court of Appeals would have been a death blow to public unions. What worker would ever pay a union to negotiate salary and benefits if they can enjoy the fruits of those negotiations free of charge?
No wonder Mitch McConnell is so desperate to keep Merrick Garland off the Court.
No wonder Mitch McConnell is so desperate to keep Merrick Garland off the Court.
21