I lay awake last night, wondering how the Democratic party is going to steal enough from workers to get by and pay the bills. I don't think I will sleep for days.
11
This is a long, long overdue curb on power hungry unions like the police, the teachers, municipal workers. But it comes too late to ward off those six-figure pensions they take that are putting cities and states in the position of diverting revenues from infrastructure spending to paying pensions. And please mail those bloated pension checks to Florida where the retired at age 40 workers have moved.
6
Who is the original fool that sued??? He just made the future for him and his co workers tougher, poorer and weaker.
8
See, here's the deal: Unions keep trying to get workers' wages raised. The Shame!
7
Once again the Times chose to frame the decision as damaging to unions, rather than even mentioning the great savings to employees who don't care to belong to or pay for a union. That is, the Times sees it thru a liberal prism rather than bifocals that there are two sides to the issue.
5
Money is speech and I have a constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech. Where is all my free money?
1
Democrats are having a bad week.
Imagine how Democrats would feel if the NYT actually reported on news. McCabe pleading the fifth. Comey fails to show for a Congressional hearing. Strzok testifying to Congress.
The absolute collapse of the Mueller witch hunt is imminent and the NYT pretends there is nothing to see here.
It is illuminating to watch what does not get reported.
3
Thank goodness
7
This decision ignores a parallel argument: “Taxes are now voluntary. You can pay them or not - it’s your choice.”
What would happen? Even clear-minded people would skip paying Uncle Sam. Small government advocates would cheer as agencies and offices closed. Seniors would become homeless as Social Security would end without a replenishment from the payroll tax. Families would beg for food on the streets because SNAP benefits had ended, and so on. The War Economy we have known since the end of WWII would cease, and the U.S. would fade into history.
Such is the fate of union balancing power to corporate greed and exploitation. The “Agency Fees” labor has been able to collect for. collective bargaining only will now make it like a government without tax revenue. Unions can not stand without financial means to do its work. It’s a sad day for ordinary Americans, who have benefitted from union bargaining for higher wages, better benefits, including healthcare, and family leave. And it’s a sad day for Democracy.
6
Many American cities are paralyzed by unfounded pension obligations to municipal workers who have allied with Democratic politicians to gain raises and benefits private sector workers can't get. This ruling won't help bankrupt cities like Hartford but may help other cities save themselves from a similar fate.
4
There shouldn’t be public sector unions. In the private sector you can’t elect your boss. In the public sector you can. And that is what the public sector does all the time. IL has amazing benefits and pay for the public sector. There are thousands of retired teachers in IL receiving six figure pensions. It is estimated that 1 out of 3 individual state tax dollars goes to pay these pensions. IL can’t afford this and is going broke. But the unions still ask for more and if you are a elected official and you don’t listen to them they will use there money to vote you out.
5
If unions refunded any money to those that opposed the political stance/spending of the union, then how are they being forced to pay to support their union's political stance? Is it true that one gets their money back? What do they have to do to get this money? If it is true, how come this came before the court to begin with? Part of citizens united enabled unions to legally support a politician and/or donate to a party. Let's take citizens united down, and then bring this case back to the courts.
2
I don't feel sorry for unions or union members. In the 1950s and 60s the unions ruined the apparel and textile industries. Granted that wages should rise and benefits should increase, but the unions sought onerous and burdensome benefits while imposing highly restrictive work rules. We no longer owned our own business. Our products became too expensive and work moved first to Southern states, then the Caribbean and finally to Asia. We lost everything. As for public service unions for teachers and state employees work rules, especially hiring restrictions, and other highly restrictive work rules hobbled education and the beauacracy of government. No work was done. Salaries and benefits soared but work and productivity declined. Complaints built up against management who's work became resolving issues rather than getting work done for the public.
There once was a time and reason for unions. Damn good reasons. But corruption, greed, laziness and political influence doomed unions. Health and welfare funds were used as pots of money for lending and god knows what else. Goodbye unions! You deserve your fate. You earned it.
9
Sad day. Hundreds of union activists going back many decades died for the right to form unions against greedy bosses and now this elite group of conservative judges throws that away by weakening unions.
Billionaire Trump will be recalled in history as the most elitist President ever
5
Labor unions should only represent dues paying members. Let the freeloaders fend for themselves!
6
The death of unions has made the death of the middle class certain. If you think otherwise you don’t know your history. If you’ve ever had a job where your worked 40 hours, had a paid vacation, paid sick leave, paid health care and a lunch hour then you should thank all those men and women who DIED, yes died, for the right to organize and join a union. Unions work for the workers and provide a balance to the power of employers both public and private. As to membership dues, there should be no free riders!
I’m sick to death of the smug unthinking anti union commenters who think corporations or government will give the workers anything out of kindness. They will take their labor; throw them out;poison them; force them to train their special visa replacements. That’s what happens when unions are demeaned and stripped of their power.
It is appalling but this work was being done by the GOP since the 1930’s. They always hated that workers had a say. They hated FDR.Now because of the erosion of the power of workers, helped along by perfidious Democrats, but always driven by greedy and vindictive Republicans. The middle class is struggling; their children shut out of universities will not live better than their parents. The children of working class parents don’t have a chance regardless of color.
This is a sad day for working people. I hear the sobbing of Those who they fought for a country of opportunity and fairness. SCOTUS IS COVERED IN SHAME.
12
If money is speech, then is speech really free?
1
Once again the lessons of history are lost by those who seek to make working people a permanent underclass to the stinking 1% Oligarch; led by the Gang of Five on the Supreme Court. The whole system of checks and balances I have forever heard about since childhood is now a total joke. Anyone who does not understand labor unions were the ONLY way working class families were able to end the abuse of wealthy business men in the early 20th Century battles has no idea how bad things were less than 100 years ago. But since people generally do not learn those lessons another generation is doomed to repeat it.SAD!
7
For all who have commented favorably about Justice Kennedy in other forums here, i hope you remember this, his farewell gift to you. Enjoy.
4
Children are suffering. Remember them. The Republican party will not rest until public education, the postal system, public service anywhere in 50 states is dead. The mainstay of our republic, the future stability of this nation is education. No student struggling to pay for college today will chose education as a lifetime goal. Democracy itself is in peril.
6
Another blow to the union movement. Dare I say that I think much of the decline in union membership can be blamed on the fat-cats in the union leadership.They left the militancy of the rank and file to the fat-cats in the Democratic Party, and to their lawyers. The battles fought were behind closed doors and the courts rather than in the streets.
As for those workers who choose not to join the union and pay their dues will they reap the benefits of what ever gains the union can make ?
3
Next decision should be removing unions and corporations from the ability to donate to or support any campaign or election.
6
I’m no legal scholar, nor do I identify as conservative. I do identify as a moderate progressive, sometimes I use the big word “ameliorist.” With all that, I find public unions both offensive and strategically impotent.
Unions are historically bread and butter organizations in this country and are concerned almost solely with wage and workplace conditions—their wages and workplace conditions, not those of the general public. They deserve to be as ineffective as they are because they lack ambition, other than their own self interest, and philosophic relevance, meaning how life can mean something other than material well-being (bread and butter). When concerned with larger issues unions are of course labeled socialist and dismissed.
Public service is how civil society enters into the worlds of governance. One of the chief reasons for the decline of civil society’s needed role in governance is public unions’ sloughing off of all that public service means, again, focusing solely on bread and butter issues.
Sorry, this isn’t an issue at least for me to get excited about—other than the legal machinations of the participants. From what I read, that’s the depressing part of the story, the decline of the Supreme Court.
1
This anti-worker overturning of a 40 year old unanimous decision is the latest sign of how how far the court has fallen. Since the arrival of Thomas the court has become more and more of a mouth-piece for the wealthy and powerful. The respect for precedent takes a back seat to doing the bidding of the oligarchs when it comes to GOP nominated "justices."
Equally disturbing is how many citizens, poisoned by propaganda, now regularly vote against their own interests. We are in serious trouble. Democratic governance has been on the decline for decades. Only a voter rebellion unprecedented in US history can hope to turn the tide on the dismantling of government by, of, and for the People.
2
This decision only affects government employee unions. The requirement to pay fair-share dues is still determined by contract agreement in the private sector.
Keep in mind that public sector unions get two bites from the apple: they have a union to represent them, and they also get to select, by voting, their "bosses" in the elected officials. I don't know of any private sector companies where the employees get to vote for their bosses!
3
“We conclude that this arrangement violates the free speech rights of nonmembers by compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern,” Isn't exactly what Citizens/United does? The profits generated by my paying the prices of goods and services are used for financing politicians and policies I disapprove of. You want a list? Look at Gillens and Page's paper.
1
“[The First Amendment] was meant not to undermine but to protect democratic governance — including over the role of public-sector unions.” Public sector unions did not exist when the First Amendment was written or ratified, so it cannot have been meant to protect them.
Further, it seems that Justices Kagan, Sotomayor and Ginsburg are not content to file a scholarly dissent, but must denigrate the majority by saying their decision is solely based on political views. This is typical of the current clutch of liberal Beltway politicians, wonks and judges. It is not enough to disagree; one must also impugn one's adversary.
3
on the one hand, even the "political expression" refund does not free a member from an unwanted association with the union's opinion and, on the other, the benefits of collective bargaining should not be a prize for those who do not contribute to its funding.
what is most likely to happen if skipping the cost of union membership is seen as a money saving choice (and the value not worth the cost) and enough of the workforce decides to skate, who and with what force will represent the voices of working men and women?
the democratic establishment has already paid a price for choosing wall street over main street both in the loss of a slam dunk election and in the sundering of its identity...perhaps it will take the growing cadre of "new socialists" to right the ship and and set a course toward promotion of "the general Welfare" which includes, btw, protection and appreciation of those whose labor makes our days.
in both unions paid to help in this house, there is a separation between dues and contribution to PACs, and both have pubic images that reflect workplace and wage protection for their members, even the PACs address legislative and regulatory matters relevant to the interests of membership.
This is as it should be. If unions have actual value in their workplace, workers will see it, and support them. Too many "free riders" = not enough funds = ineffective union representation = potentially fewer employee benefits. If so-called free riders see their benefits being diminished, then they can vote with their pocketbooks and support their union economically.
When I took a new job as a government judge a few years ago, I worked there for a year, evaluating the workplace generally, management and the union specifically. Then I decided to join the union and pay dues. My choice, an informed decision after making a careful study of the pros and cons.
Every worker should be entitled to make the same decision regarding how their money should be spent. Justice Kagan may be correct that the majority overruled existing precedent "because it wanted to." Sad as that may be, sometimes policy enshrined in past decisions is simply bad policy. The Supreme Court overruled its 1944 Korematsu decision in 2018, and I don't hear anyone complaining about that.
4
Of course Korematsu hadn't become a precedent for mass incarceration...
In the last quarter century, the foundations of the American society has changed, slowly but surely. The legal, political, and regulatory systems used to be pro consumer and pro competition to protect the people of this country. The political system has become extremely polarized affecting the legal and the regulatory legs of this triad. The regulations that protected the masses were lifted one by one in favor of the corporations and the legal system, all the way up to the Supreme Court turned its back to the people to favor the corporations and the very rich.
In all aspects of our lives, we accept, even welcome regulation and try to live within the boundaries. We at least try to obey the speed limit, parking rules, renew our driver's license, maintain our property, pay our taxes. But when it comes to the fairness doctrine and equal time on the media, it becomes too confining. Or, the regulations that protected the passengers on airline flights became too cumbersome on airlines. Rightful class-action suits threatened the corporations and the rich, and a couple of lines in fine print now protects them barring most such legal actions.
All these are the consequences of the "conservative" political views that are constantly pushed to the extreme and almost lost the meaning of being conservative. The remedy is in the ballot boxes this November. This runaway capitalist mentality and the protection of the rich need to be balanced by labor and public protection.
5
I think unions are necessary in the private sector. But definitely not necessary in the public sector.
I think this action will however make the unions bosses a little more responsive now to their members
4
i am a retired public employee who was forced to pay union dues. these dues were used in large part to fund the political campaigns of the elected mayor and city council members. these are the very same people who vote on the contracts of the public employee unions, such as the Service Employees International Union (the latter of which i was a member). Does this situation not seem to be an obvious conflict of interest? is there any wonder why public employees in California have both incredible salaries and benefits, especially pensions? and the key point that needs to be made abundantly clear: these salaries and benefits come at an increasing cost to the programs needed to serve their communities, such as libraries, recreation centers, parks, ambulances, fire trucks, etc. This is a key argument for why the Supreme Court ruling is the correct decision. the unions, through the forced collection of dues, buy the support of legislators who vote on their contracts. the unions therefore now control the California legislature and city halls and counties throughout the state. this arrangement distorts our democratic principles and gives unions a seriously unfair bargaining position. allowing unions to collect dues from members on a voluntary basis is fine, but not to do so involuntarily. it is against my own, and i suspect others, moral philosophy to be forced to pay dues that are used for unethical purposes.
8
Americans, I find, have very little social conscience; most of us put their own narrow interests above the common good. And if some can take advantage of a system, they consider that as a constitutional right.
Being a free loader is not the same as expressing one's opinion freely.
How about if I "drop out" of the IRS system because I oppose wars?
Will this reactionary Supreme Court support me at that?
It is the same principle, isn't it?
The basic foundation of organized labor is to collectively negotiate with capital for better pay and terms of employment. That pushed up an entire generation onto prosperity.
I don't blame so much the right, such as the Koch; it is their game. I blame the millions of freeloaders out there who in their narrow selfishness will push the American worker back to the XIX Century.
10
People that don't pay their dues should have their names printed monthly in the Union News Letter.
3
It would make no difference except perhaps to shame them. Generally I've found people who do this really can't be shamed.
Gotta say it. The guy who cheated his employees loves this decision to weaken unions.
The guy with multiple extramarital affairs said he would end Roe v. Wade, which will directly affect poor and disadvantaged women. Many in the Trump states.
His Lawyer Cohen has tapes--yes tapes--of interactions that go back years. Mueller wants to finish by early September. We will learn much about the private life of Trump and various women, pregnancies and whatever.
We women are entering dangerous times.
8
This is the decision -- not he Muslim ban -- which confirms that the SCOTUS Four are an extension of the Republican party rather than serious scholars of the law.
The Republic has lost almost all Constitutional checks and balances (the Senate may surprise) with the House of Representatives gone the way of the Roman Senate and the Supreme Court -- should Trump's nominee to replace Justice Kennedy survive the Senate gauntlet --an imitation of Nicolas Maduro's Supreme Court in Venezuela.
It only took 2 years and change for Mussolini to undo Rome's republic. Arguably, our would be Caesar -- think of Trump as Orange Julius -- is on schedule.
8
Having weakened unions for decades, the right wing is now going in for the kill of the union movement in order to ensure there is no countervailing power to total corporate rule.
Having been in a public employee union, I can say the union leadership has partly brought about their demise by its top down rule, doing as little as possible to involve the rank and file. Still, there may be a few unintended consequences whereby a few union leaders become more militant to appeal to rank and file instead of doing little but collect the dues. However, there is little doubt that working people will have less and less voice in political and economic policy.
3
The Supreme Court is supposedly non- partisan yet it treats corporations as people and labor unions as predatory. Human rights are no longer championed with the discrimination against Muslims. It’s taken just a few hundred years for the US to devolve into a dictatorship. Congress is useless and the judiciary a mockery of justice. Ironically, Britain and the remains of its empire are the only true democracies.
7
Huge difference - IMHO - between public and private sector unions. The fiscal cliff near which many states and municipalities (and federal gov't?) are precariously perched has been caused largely by a devil's compact between politicians and public sector unions. Private sector employees should be free to squeeze what they can out of their employers; but public sector employees work for all of us. There is an outrageous discrepancy - in my state of CT - between public employee pensions vs the rest of us. And public employee working conditions are cushy (lots of days off, fewer hours, etc). Regardless whether SCOTUS decided on true constitutional grounds (hopefully) or not (equally likely), the end result might, in time, weaken public sector unions and bring about fairness to the rest of the citizenry and better finances to our states/cities. On all social issues I'm liberal in the extreme. Not so much fiscally.
12
Public unions are a disgrace and a slap in the face to American citizens. They only serve themselves and not the people they represent. An example of how useless they are is that some union officials work full time with government paychecks without serving the public good. Public service unions at all levels of government should be abolished.
14
Amen
2
Should have happened years ago; unions outlawed period. Confiscation of workers money so they can use for political reasons is wrong. Those not in unions (many) not balanced. People can keep hundreds more of their money. The unions got too greedy, brash, and ruined it for themselves. Thank God for fairness, the U.S. Supreme Court and this president.
8
Justice Kagan’s assertion, with the seeming concurrence of fellow justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor that the courts decision has now “weaponized” the First Amendment needs to be examined, especially now that a vacancy in their ranks is imminent. Apparently Justice Kagen and her liberal colleagues take a dim view on the rights of Americans to engage it and “for over forty years” judges like her have demonstrated that disdain by upholding a law that deprived Americans from exercising it.
To judges like Kagan who have used their positions to render decisions impacting the lives of Americans the First Amendment is a weapon, as the framers of the Constitution fully intended. Much to the delight of constitutionalists and those cherishing free speech, it was successfully used against her.
8
Karan's was an emotionally charged and ideologically laden comment. Very telling about her intellect as a judge.
5
This is the opportunity for progressive and decent states to pass laws banning non-paying union members to receive the benefits obtained by those who paid their dues.
3
Kennedy dumps on the unions, then dumps on America by giving Trump and McConnell the opportunity to stick us with another right-wing activist judge for a couple more decades.
5
Maybe those who have praised Kennedy's record to excess should take another look.
1
"...weaponizing the First Amendment"? These are the words of an ideologue. Justice Kagan is turning out to be as misguided an ideologue as Justice Sotomayor. They both believe the purpose of the law is to further an agenda -- theirs.
10
I'm from Sweden and not a member of any union, and I don't have to pay any money. I think that's reasonable
6
What you’re saying about the ruling is not accurate. The ruling mandates that unions must still represent those who choose not to pay.
1
No the ruling doesn't say that. It just happens that Unions want the right to exclusively bargain so they demand it in their negotiations with government.
This is a disaster that can be made more palatable if it were accompanied by the requirement that persons not wishing to pay union dues must negotiate their own contracts. They should not receive the wages and benefits negotiated by the union representatives. Without paying dues, they have no skin in the game!
9
What if those who don't pay dues make more money than the union negotiates? What will you do then?
2
Public labor unions represent (or should at least) the employees. Management represents the interests of the taxpayer. The taxpayers are entitled to receive an honest days work for an honest days pay. The former is managements job, the latter the unions.
Too often, however, the union strays from their main responsibility and ventures not only into politics- where their preferences and that of many of their members do not align- but further insist on a seat at managements table when it comes to matters that really are management responsibilities and prerogatives. It is as though they want to become a shadow management, having a veto over management decisions, without any responsibility to the taxpayers for failures to provide fair and expected labor services.
This is one of the huge problems when it comes to public employee unions. Ultimately, between union pressure and at times outright intimidation, as well as episodes of outright thuggery by union enforcers and bosses, many workers are cowed into loyalty to the union as opposed to their job duties, professional responsibilities and ethics.
It is these types of issues that has many taxpayers cheering the SCOTUS decision, the view of public labor unions having in many instances become one that sees their sole mission as negotiating for as much money and benefits as possible for as little work as possible, along with spending an inordinate amount of time protecting the jobs of the bad apples among their membership
12
The "Janus" rules:
- no "closed shop" (employment for union members only)
- no mandatory fee for non-members
is German Labor Law from 1950ties on up to now for all kinds of employments. It doessn´t mattter wether it is public or private and it is to apply for all unions. So called "Differentiation clauses" (provisions in collective agreements explicitely excluding non-members from benefits) are also not allowed in regular cases from the mid 1960ties on.
This is a legal consequence of a fundamental right stipulated in Art 9 Grundgesetz (German Constitution). Workers are free to join a union - this is called "Koalitionsfreiheit" or to stay away - so- called "Negative Koalitionsfreiheit".
If an employee is member of a union he ha sall rights granted by collective agreement. If not labor conditions may freely negotiated in private sector. Public employers have to apply collective agreements for all employment without regard to union membership
The disadvantage for non member is the exclusion of strike funds in case of strike or lockouts.
This means in effect:
Unless the "Janus" principle is more or less traditional long-term German Labour Law up to now and is indeniably safeguarded by Constitution the world is still spinning, German unions are still living with it and are deemed to be considerably strong in global comparison.
2
I’ve been a union man and representative for thirty years. Today, the pendulum swings to the right, but, fear not, it will return. Labour history proves that, but it hurts for the worker in the interim. People like Janus despise unions until they need one, and they will as sure as eggs is eggs. Employers without the burden of effective union opposition overstep the mark, voraciously chewing up everyone in their path. Janus and his ilk inevitably get bitten and will beseech the union’s assistance - and it will be there because that’s what good unions do.
Unions built nations and saved societies from avarice and ruthless labour practises. The sooner working people who decry union membership wise up to the great services paid to them, very much the better.
8
What needs to happen now is that unions should only provide benefits to their members. If someone doesn't want to pay, fine-- let them negotiate wages and working conditions directly with their employers. The collective benefits won by unions should only accrue to those who contribute to the collective. Are not so-called conservatives always complaining about free loaders?
5
Once a worker opts to become a 'free rider', he or she should be given the 'welfare fund' money that the employer gives to the union to provide drug and eyeglass coverage to give them the choice to find their own coverage. In addition the union should not have to provide a free rider an attorney for disciplinary issues.
5
Actually, it is now NYS law that unions do not have to provide non-contractual services to non-members, which covers legal representation. I love your idea about just letting non-members find their own insurance; don't think it is possible, but it is a good idea. Unions should make every effort to keep benefits from those who do not pay their fair share.
4
Why is no one asking why people don't want to join labor unions as they once did. Union are now big business, not so much the champions of the underdog as they were in the 1920s and '30s. Union bigwigs hobnob with company VIPs and make much more money than their constituents. No wonder they've lost ground and people don't want to join them.
4
Why does everyone assume this will hurt workers not paying dues? I'll bet there are a lot of bosses who would like to reward their best workers but cannot now do so because it has to go through the union. Now those employees' efforts can be rewarded based on merit. Bringing "merit" back into the picture is a *good* thing. It's never been good that an industrious worker should be told to stop working that hard because it makes everyone else look bad and/or violates union rules.
5
I think joining a union should be a matter of choice. However, if you don't join, then you shouldn't be able to reap the benefits of union negotiations for higher pay, etc.
13
Sadly the law is otherwise. The union is required to represent you. The Supreme Court did not relieve the union of its responsibility to represent you whether you pay or not.
1
The simple and fair solution would be to exclude non-union members from any benefits won by union negotiations. The individual not wanting to be in a union can be free to negotiate as an individual with the employer.
12
Excellent solution.
In some industries non-union employees would be treated as disposable, and they could join the union or quit.
In other industries, non-union employees may drive better deals as valued individuals. This is OK too.
3
So, public employees who benefit from the results of collective bargaining don't have to help pay for it? That doesn't seem right. And if enough people opt out of paying union dues, the unions won't have the power to negotiate good terms for the workers. I know why Republican politicians support that, but why would workers? It's just tragic how misinformed people are about doing what is in their own best interests.
8
"And if enough people opt out of paying union dues, the unions won't have the power to negotiate good terms for the workers." Bingo!
2
This decision undermining unions has been a long time coming.
In the 1960s my dad was president of an aerospace company who answered to a couple members of Ronald Reagan's kitchen cabinet. Each time his workers tried to unionize the big boys in management made sure he made it a priority to quash them. He had to act as if it were a all hands on deck 24/7 FIVE alarm fire.
5
Before I decided I needed to earn more money, I worked for unions and raised money to support them. Union busting has a long history of short term gains. In adverse conditions facing disrespect and risks to safety as well as low pay, people who formerly thought of themselves as independent individuals will band together and vote union. They will suffer but they will win. People like Mark Janus are ringers and they've always been around.
6
It seems clear that we need collective bargaining to help workers negotiate with big businesses and big government; however, in many cases it appears that unions become just as power hungry and corrupt as big businesses with the workers caught between the two. This ruling could force unions to compete with businesses for workers. If a union can't convince the workers that they provide enough value to warrant their fees, they shouldn't expect workers to join. Unions will now be forced to justify and account for their expenses and do things in the best interest of their members instead of the best interest of those in power in the union.
2
Janus is the two-faced Roman god. In this case, the appellant is happy that others spend their time and money to get benefits from collective bargaining in which he shares, but doesn't want to contribute. If this is "conservatism," then the word has to be redefined. Since when is free riding a conservative value?
6
When I was young, I worked at a minimum wage job where I was required to pay union dues. The Union did nothing for me but take my money and negotiate the minimum wage on my behalf.
When I was older, I sat across the negotiating table from the NJEA. I watched them negotiate away (to my benefit) important benefits from their members and ask for things that made no sense. There was some internal political thing happening that I never figured out. All the while, my wife, an NJEA member, was paying dues she didn’t want to pay.
As I near retirement, I understand that while unions have played a role in protecting some employees, they are still political organizations. Many are corrupt. And, some employees are protected from abusive employers.
I know however that I have always gotten the best deal when I have negotiated for myself. The held true for salary, days off, working conditions etc. All Because I worked hard and was valuable to my employer. Always. When I wasn’t the superstar I was still able to negotiate fairness. In the few times I couldn’t I took responsibility for myself and moved on.
I agree that no one should be forced to pay to join a labor/political organization they wish to not be a member of.
2
I see by the comments that people either favor or are anti the decision based on how they feel about unions.
The SC decides the issue based on their interpretation of the constitution.
I don't understand how that was done but I am certain it should not be based on how the judges felt about unions.
This is why I don't like this article.
It is saying the decision was a blow to labor as if it is a bad decision for that reason.
Why is that mentioned when the issue was not being decided based on that criteria
4
"It is saying the decision was a blow to labor as if it is a bad decision for that reason." Ideologues, including those on the SCOTUS, see the law as a barrier versus guidepost.
2
It seems like many commenters here assume that public sector unions are progressive. Not always.
The largest contributor to the three strikes law in California was the corrections officers union. Talk about a law that really harms African Americans and Hispanics - that would be one of the worst. And don't get me started about police unions.
The greatest threat to school districts and local governments is the bill coming due for outlandish retirement benefits that politicians gave to unions for - drum roll - votes.
FDR and George Meany were against public sector unions. They had good reasons. Google them.
3
I don't see how forcing union membership violates free speech rights.
Forced membership may be protested using speech. If someone is so anti-union as not to accept the usual rules regarding unions, then maybe look for a non-union job.
3
Query:
So can unions provide employers with exclusion lists?
Have the negotiated conditions only apply to union members?
4
Thank God for this decision. Public employees are not special. We ask people who we make equivalent salaries in the private sector to save for their own retirement. Public employees should do the same. I know some will say police and fire have dangerous jobs---they are not in the top 10 of dangerous jobs and those people who are in the most dangerous jobs have to save for their own retirement.
6
Without unions law enforcement and firemen will no longer exist. Certainly if you can afford your own mercenaries to protect you, you will be fine.
2
There will always be police and fire--the salary in and of itself is too good and someone will apply for the job. No worries.
As a former government employee, I was amazed at the incredible waste and inefficiency public sector unions promoted. Had they stuck to wages and working conditions, fine. They did not not and wasted incredible time battling over petty grievances that no one had any real interest in except for the public union bureaucracy itself. Public employees have an incredible web of civil service regulations that protects their rights. As FDR said, unions have no place in the public sector.
16
Even workers realize this; hence, their distaste at padding the unions' coffers.
3
Wise decision, ultimately. Labor unions have far outlived their useful purpose.
2
A shame, in my opinion, because of the pressures on American workers from global competition. If ever American workers needed assistance, it's now. The unions are too bloated and ineffective to be useful.
2
Even FDR opposed public-sector labor unions for good cause: they do not advocate for labor vs capital but for public employee vs public administrator, both on the taxpayer's tab. It is unconscionable that taxpayer payroll dollars should be diverted into partisan political coffers.
5
FDR knew public unions were a bad idea and was very much against them. Here in California, the unions control the politicians lock, stock and barrel. They vote as a block their interest, not the public interest. This is why we have a bloated, inefficient, entitled bureaucratic mess. The bureaucrats are over payed, under worked and have benefits beyond what anyone in the private sector could hope for. And the unions will bankrupt us all --- just check out their pensions, billions of unfunded liability which the taxpayers eventually will not fund, because they will not be able to fund. This is what public unions have wrought.
9
The days when unions through collective bargaining on behalf of all members elevated their rank and file members to the middle class are long gone. Typically in the private sector there are two tiers of workers—the favored few who are full-time employees and enjoy all the benefits that go with the job. The other more numerous tier consists of part-time and seasonal workers who are forced to pay dues but get nothing in return. Needless to say, promotion is not in the picture for them because the good paying full-time jobs go to the family and friends of the union officers. It is corruption at its worst which is paid for off the backs of the part-time and seasonal workers. Now at least these workers will have some say and will want to know what they will be getting for their hard-earned money. Most will probably decide that union membership is not worth it.
3
Sooner rather than later, people in this country will deeply regret not having labor unions.
15
Private and public sector unions have absolutely NOTHING to do with each other. Learn the difference.
2
Bravo for the Supreme Court in protecting workers from having to pay dues to labour unions they decide not to join.
4
Lewis - do you understand the unions still have to represent non-member employees with grievances, etc.?
The first sentence of the Constitution describes the United States as a Union. According to this recent Supreme Court decision nonmembers (resident aliens, illegal aliens, and convicted criminals who have had their civil rights revoked) can no longer be compelled to pay dues (federal taxes) because it violates their free speech rights. The decision may also allow nonmembers to request reimbursement for past dues (taxes) paid.
5
Another 5 to 4 decision with the same judges voting the same way. The Supreme court is nothing more than a bunch of political appointees, not independent judges.
10
"What's the point of voting? There is no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans."
That theory is being put to the test.
6
When the Colorado cake baker decision came down, many conservatives said that the gay couple should have just found another baker to accommodate them.
This leaves me wondering why Mr. Janus could not have found another non-union job to accommodate him and his beliefs?
There are plenty low-wage, non-union jobs out there thanks to decisions such as today's. You'll have worse working conditions and few protections but at least you won't have to support something you don't believe in!
6
The NEA needlessly weighed in on abortion forty years ago.
Many teachers objected, but the leaders wouldn't listen.
Now it will be clear that many, many teachers do not support the NEA or AFT.
2
I've worked in 2 union shops, one a public sector union that I was forced to join as a summer intern, the other a UAW shop where I was a Jr Engineer.
The public sector union practised time travel (work finished at 4:00, but workers were at the bar at 3:30).
The UAW discriminated against hard working junior technicians and favored lackadaisical senior members,including sabotaging workstations of junior guys that were working too fast. The plant is long gone, of course and the union jobs did not come back. Many of the junior guys with good work ethic are doing ok.
10
Janus is quick to say he is not anti-union. However he seems ok with being a hanger on when contract negotiations win a pay raise for him. Something for nothing.
6
Why would any public sector employees needs an union? Democrats have controlled one or both houses of Congress since 2005. Obama enacted so many positive changes using executive orders. Government agency executives ends every speech thanking their employees. With all the speeches on equal pay, living wage, proper compensation we hear from Democratic politicians, who would desire more?
If bosses are saints that worries more about your benefits then you, what more could you possibly desire?
Oh right, Obama's freezed federal employee salary from 2011 through 2013 by executive order and Democrats love talking about workers' rights but not actually pay them more.
5
"Democrats have controlled one or both Houses of Congress since 2005"? Really? Which one did they control in 2005? Which one do they control now?
The rest of your argument is equally specious and incoherent.
3
Labor unions built the middle class in America. Trump and his minions (and many "Democrats" who purport to support the labor union movement), including the Supreme Court Justices he appointed, want to make sure that there is no middle class with any clout, and that Americans are at the mercy of the rich and powerful, and have to go begging to them for every penny. Why their supporters fail to recognize this baffles me.
4
I don't know the exact date, but the day came, quite some time ago, when the richest Americans and largest corporations realized our best days were behind us, so they cut investment in a future they decided wouldn't exist, fleeced all the wealth possible before they make their great exodus to mansions, castles, private islands, condos in the sky and any other of Earth's locales where the richest live lives of dreams. Meanwhile, back here in the ruins of North America... who's going to play Snake Plissken?
8
I belong to SEIU 1000 in California (don't have a choice). It overcharges it's members, fights fiscal transparency, and the Fair Share opt out portion (ie., not having to pay for the Union's myriad political activities) is constantly being goosed to be virutally meaningless. On the other hand, everyone should pay for collective bargaining costs if they benefit from it. I don't support this ruling; no one should get a free ride.
3
Fine. But, to be fair, people who "opt-out" should have to negotiate their own contracts with management. Either as a group separate from the union, or on a one-on-one basis.
Ever tried to get individual health insurance before the ACA, or individual dental insurance? Best of luck GOP "independents". You're going to need it. LOL!
Of course, the GOP and the courts will see to it that Republican workers will still benefit from the work of the union, but, you know, without having to pay for any of it.
Skinflints the lot.
6
If you like a 40-hour work week, thank unions. If you like paid vacation, thank unions. If you enjoy quality health insurance, thank unions. If you like health and safety codes, thank unions. If you like having a wage you can support a family on, thank unions.
10
This is a silly meme. yes, unions helped bring about all the things that you mentioned. But those things now have been codified in law for about 70 years. So what have unions done for you lately, other than preside over massive job losses in the domestic economy?
2
I was required to join a public sector union and the experience was demoralizing at best. No matter how hard I worked I couldn’t get a raise except the ones EVERYONE got. Promotions were out of the question because they were based only on seniority, not performance. I switched to another public sector job without unions and the difference is unreal. Work gets done faster, and I’ve gotten raises and a promotion based on performance. Even better, I no longer have to fork over 1.5 percent of my salary to the union.
11
Weird.I was a union civil servant myself only nothing you mention is remotely similar to anything I experienced as a nurse at a state hospital. Of course, this article is about federal civil servants and perhaps you were unaware that their unions don’t have the same sort of bargaining rights as state civil servants?
7
If this shakes up public employee unions, and forces them to more actively engage their members and demonstrate the benefits of union membership, then it will be a good thing.
If unions are doing their jobs, the following line from the article is simply wrong -- the economic rational for financially supporting the union will be obvious to the members.
"The decision could encourage many workers perfectly happy with their unions’ work to make the economically rational decision to opt out of paying for it."
10
This is the "beggar-thy-neighbor" school of reasoning the Republicans have used so effectively for so long.
9
Today's Supreme Court decision hurts Unions and Union employees.
The NYT achieves "both sides" reporting that news. A loyal Times employee wrote up an analysis of the decision. A Manhattan Institute op ed was posted on line. NOTHING from a Union or from a Union member was posted on line or printed in the paper.
What do Unions say about all this? What do Union employees say about all this? What do Union employees at the Times have to say about this? NONE of that is news fit to print in the Times. NONE of the editorials, analysis, op eds, or news reporting in today's paper about the Supreme Court decision are from Union leaders or members.
15
Good, good. Let them get what they deserve for voting for Trump Republicans.
2
Remember, the majority voted for Clinton. I’m a teacher and I absolutely don’t deserve this.
9
The GOP is the biggest losers. The Police and Firefighters are their biggest union voters. Good luck 2018 midterms. Ask Jeb Bush or Governor Tick Scott in Florida for just two.
8
I wonder how many of the trump cult members who are following his anti-union lead realize their dear elite leader was/is a member of a union (SAG)?
7
Gustav: So was Reagan. Pretty good company to be in.
That'll show those guys leaning on shovels while one digs! Ha! Gaslighting for decades really pays off for the Oligarchy. Revolution!
9
Where is this world going? I guess it will take child labor and working conditions back to the guilded age before some stupid people wake up! The middle class lifestyle was made possible by labor unions, it didn't just happen! It was fought for by people of my parents and grandparents generation. It is all being lost. Do not lament your loss of economic status you brought it about, by your refusal to join a labor union.
The fairest resolution of this case would have been to find for the plaintiff, but to also require the plaintiff to receive the salary and benefits not negotiated by the union; which would be much less. Benefits go to those who pay for them by joining the union. How ignorant!
18
Mr. Janus, I believe the expression is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
11
Putin was right. Our democracy can be easily thrown because our system moves to slowly. It can't and hasn't ever dealt with a scenario where our executive branch was devoid of checks held on it by our legislative branch and the forth estate was being attacked by people who should know better. We have a Russian plant and criminal in the Whitehouse who is sure to load anyone in the SCOTUS who will vote that a President can pardon himself and never be prosecuted. Trump will continue to dismantle our constitution. You know the famous seer Baba Vanga predicted the United States would have a black president and that the president that followed him would be the United States "last acting president" . I'm not one to put much faith in seers but that prediction has haunted me lately. Maybe this is just how the United States ends. Brought down by stupidity, greed and the republican party's complete abandonment of it's own principles to ride to power on the coat tails of a traitor.
8
I am liberal and pro union. Very much so.....but not in the public sector......there is no counterweight......the unions feed the politicians who feed the unions and the citizens get screwed. The difference in pay between unionized public employees and private employees is scandalous. We need to encourage the unions in the private sector.
19
Where is your data? Or is this another alternative fact?
Public union with too much weight? Yeah, that was really easy going 7 years without a contract. What weight we had! Every NYC/NYS official refusing to even give us COLA.
Such a counterweight we were...NOT.
Don't play the poorhouse game, AS. You want private sector unions? GO WORK FOR IT like we did. And when you look for data, you will find confidential exec assistants working for? $40K, in NYC. Go run with that.
3
Stop with the “you’ve got it better than me, so that’s” unfair!” Go get yourself a private union again, then. That private unions have collapsed is the reason public employees - who kept their unions - have it better.
3
As a member of a public sector union, I can't say that I'm surprised by this ruling; once Gorsuch was installed this decision was assumed. This isn't to say I agree, or am indifferent to the decision. Frankly, I've always been of the mind that if you receive something of value, you should be expected to pay for it. Teachers, or other public sector employees who opt out of their union should be required to negotiate their own contracts and deal with the consequences to their working conditions.
17
I am okay with this as long as those who opt out of union dues are prohibited from deriving the same kind of benefits and conditions the union negotiated on behalf of its members, they have to negotiate their contract with their employer (the state) on their own. Good luck.
15
But those who opt out are NOT prohibited from deriving the same kind of benefits and conditions as the union members.
1
What makes you think the unions will be delivering such goodies to their members when their membership is reduced? Will the unions' clout be diminished without the old membership numbers?
1
Having been a dues paying member of a union, I can certainly opine that the efforts and expenditures of the union were not always for the benefit of the workers. Radicalized leaders actually made working conditions worse as companies demanded harsher productivity goals as part of wage and benefit packages. Union leadership would demand that we go on strike to support other unions, members who in reality do nothing for my employment or career, but certainly cost me income lost. I eventually went to a non-union employer who had a defined wage and benefit package and was actually more competitive than the union position I held. I no longer had to pay out a portion of my pay to feed the union trough.
12
It sounds like unions have their own little bureaucratic political "state", separate from the employers and workers. No doubt, this is what contributed greatly to their demise.
As a retired federal employee, I will state three facts. One, I am a supporter of workers’ right to unionize. Two, this ruling is nothing new: federal employees have lived with this situation since FDR . Third, government unions are vastly different from commercial unions for a couple of critical reasons that are apparent to any diligent policy thinker.
5
I am not sure if there’s any practical way in the immediate future for unions and governments to bar non-members from the basic benefits of collectively bargained contracts like salary increases, health benefits, work hours and the like. But anyone who doesn’t pay dues and is not a union member should not expect support through arbitration and legal representation when managers become abusive as they often do.
9
Make sense. There shouldn't be membership fee requirements for getting a job. Professional certification fee makes sense, coworker activity fee makes no sense if you aren't participating in coworker events.
4
Shouldn't this also mean that the benefits accrued through collective bargaining (higher wages, better working conditions, etc.) can be denied to those who decided not to pay?
12
No labor unions for the common laborer but the unions of big businesses like ALEC and the US Chamber keep their power to behave like a protection racket against public interests. In addition. many large companies "Highly recommend" their employees donate and vote in the corporations best interest. Now if that isn't coercion, I don't know what is. Our children will fight the same labor battles our great grandparents fought but this time it won't be against Henry Ford or the robber barons, it will be against multinational corporations with more money than third world countries.
34
The “grand experiment” that is the United States is an abysmal failure. This is not representative government. Let’s start again.
23
The United States is far from a failure. The poorest American is 1000 x better off than the average person in the world. What does the liberal want? To live in a place “controlled” by the worker like Venezuela? Only in American where we have it so good can people afford to complain so much.
There is strength in uniting but individuals haven't got a chance alone.This is another step deeper into fascism. Good luck.
26
It's mind-boggling to me that of all people, the working and middle class folks who support Trump and this Supreme Court decision don't seem to know about the all the lives and blood that were sacrificed by union members and organizers to give the working man a better life and dignity. They are traitors to their fathers' and grandfathers' generations.
43
Our schools don’t teach it. Odd, don’t ya think?
8
Resting on their laurels? Sounds like union leaders haven't done a very good job maintaining their relevance. Their most important constituent -- their workers -- want to vote with their feet.
Seems the race to the bottom just increased by a couple of knots. While you should not wish for things to get worse, at least not accelerate, one would hope that the bottom is near enough so to cushion the bounce back and to avoid the US electorate from sustainable serious and lasting brain damage.
18
Justice Kennedy is retiring and Trump gets a crack at nominating and getting confirmed another RELIABLY conservative justice soon.
Elections have consequences, people.
11
What a waste of time and resources to have brilliant and powerful attorneys actually argue the law before the SCOTUS when all that’s necessary to decide the case is to know which side the right-wing, which has pirated our checks-and-balance system, supports. Heck, anyone can be a SC judge these days. How would Ivanka look in a long black robe? Branded, of course.
17
Neal the steal has done it again!
14
I think working with a contract that spells out clear responsibilities is well worth the union dues! Most Americans have become "at will" employees -- So if your boss dislikes you for any reason your fired! Like how Trump runs his Whitehouse -- Your fired!
19
Any laws that weaken Unions...weakens labor...looks to me like a Trump victory...take away from the least paid and powerful in a society to line the pockets of the top1%...
19
Least paid--hardly. Have you checked out their salaries and benefits. They are bankrupting numerous cities and some states.
11
Big Business is breaking cities and states, only making deals to invest if representatives offer them a free ride.
Driven, what's bankrupting cities and states is people who think that taxes are evil.
They're the same people that want everyone else to pay, while they get a free ride.
So it is OK for a corporation to take profits in a company I own to support candidates and environmental positions that I am disgusted by but it is not OK for a union to to do something similar.
The non union members will of course be happy to take a salary and benefits substantially less than the union members since they don't want anything to do with them.
14
This is a despicable decision helped by an illegitimate usurper, Gorsuck, who was appointed by an illegitimate usurper, trump, to the court!
The question is this: How many union workers voted for the idiot trump because he "tells' it like it is"? Do you like what you ended up with. They're coming for your union next!
In my life time there have been very few presidential elections where my vote wasn't based on potential court appointees. The president is for 4 or 8 years, unless there is a death or impeachment, but the court can last a generation or more!
This court will undo decisions perhaps as far back to the Warren Court!
17
Long overdue. Pun fully intended.
Public employee unions are an obvious conflict of interest by design, and should be illegal.
19
Only in the public sector do the workers get to elect management. Only in the public sector do the workers get to elect the people who decide their wages and benefits. Isn't that enough power? The governors in states like New York and New Jersey no longer represent taxpayers, they now represent the public sector workers who elect them. That's enough power to bankrupt a state, like Illinois and like New Jersey, where public sector pensions and medical benefits are a massive liability.
22
Illinois is broke because the General Assembly and Governor keep robbing from the pension fund, to which public union members pay 10% of their income.
3
This equates to one being able to receive dividends on corporate stock that one has not paid for. Republican President Theodore Roosevelt (TR) recognized the right and need of labor to organize to bargain collectively---TR said:
“In the present state of society, and until we advance much farther than at present along lines of genuine altruism, there must be effective and organized collective action by the wage-workers in great industrial enterprises. They must act jointly through the process of collective bargaining. Only thus can they be put upon a plane of economic equality with their corporate employers. Capital is organized, and the laborer can secure proper liberty and proper treatment only if labor organizes also.”
9
Yeah. These are public unions we are discussing.
3
I am no Conservative and did not vote for Trump, but have never been comfortable with compulsory Union dues. I also think public employees should be forbidden to join in a labor union.
29
Good luck with your public services, then. Fast food joints will start paying the better income.
2
This will work out very well. The union can negotiate a 2% increase for its members. For those who opt out of the union, the school district or municipality can give 3% increases to the best employees, and a 0% increase to the worst employees.
Ever hear of the word merit?
20
Increase? What increase? Haven’t had an increase in over a decade as a public school teacher. What world are you living in?
2
All union collective bargaining agreements should proclaim that all benefits, right and benefits are extended to members of said union. The republicans have been trying to destroy organized labor since the Roosevelt Administration and faux champion but true enemy of the working man, President Bone Spurs has taken a giant step toward making that a reality. Too bad. To all the union haters out there remember this. All the benefits that you may enjoy were no given to you by the benevolence of your employers. There were hard fought and won by labor unions or the threat of unionization.
14
FDR did not want unions for public employees!!
6
Unions only existed where they were needed and public employees needed them.
What effect will this ruling have on SEIU? They are so politically engaged and represent so many public and private sector employees in various fields, who have such a wide array of different political views, socio-economic realities, and with different employment related concerns. Now that contributions are discretionary for public sector employees (a large segment of their membership), will these employees want to contribute when they know that their contributions are supporting political causes such opening borders or the "Fight for $15" that they may not support?
4
So workers who opt out of supporting the union will also decline the wages and benefits the union negotiates for its members, am I right? Wait, don't tell me, they won't?
13
Maybe each should negotiate on merit--wait, don't tell me--unions don't like merit.
1
100% of American workers are taxpayers in one way or another. Why should the 90%+ of American workers who are not public sector workers support public sector unions? History is not relevant. In what way do these public sector unions benefit private sector workers TODAY? I argue that they deliver zero benefits, but have no problem taking your tax money with no accountability. Yes, that includes police and fireman unions, which are just as bad as the rest.
15
Because in areas with a strong union presence, wages are higher for everyone as employers have to compete for employees.
18
First of all, police and firemen are first responders who save lives and sometimes lose theirs in the line of duty (that's a benefit!). Remember 9/11?Secondly, 100% of American union members pay taxes and the more money they earn the more taxes they pay. There's no free ride.
2
I think that a lot of the hostility directed toward public sector unions is jealousy that they have better benefits and job protections than many in the private sector. If I can't have it, neither can you.
28
Exactly. A race to the bottom. It’s so much easier to tear others down that build yourself up. What too many working-class, anti-union folks fail to realize is that, in areas with a strong union presence, the competition drives up wages for EVERYONE.
Hell, maybe they do realize it and are willing to bite their nose off to spite their face.
16
It’s not jealousy. It’s the rigged system of paying off unions for votes with taxpayers hard earned money.
14
Agree -- once again, we are told the only option is workers fighting against workers for their little piece of the pie, rather than looking at the culprits-- those who exploit all of our labor. When public workers are dragged down to where the rest of us have fallen over the last 30 or so years, how far further will we drop? While the wealthy laugh all the way to the banks.
6
The plaintiff's complaint was that "he should not be forced to pay fees to support positions he did not agree with."
Fine. Now should the unions be forced to represent people like Mr. Janus who do not want to be represented by them? Or do First Amendment rights work in only one direction?
If Mr. Janus shouldn't be forced to support the union then the union shouldn't be forced to represent Mr. Janus when it bargains collectively. It should only have to represent its members, not a bunch of freeloaders.
30
Mr. Janus's union is still required to represent him. That law hasn't changed.
Why should the union be involved in political decisions? If they want to get involved in politics, they suffer the risk of being "voted" out.
In another article today in NYT, there's this: "In April, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York, where public sector unions remain powerful, signed a law freeing the unions from the legal requirement to represent workers who have not paid dues in disputes with management."
Seems fair to me. Don't want to pay, don't get representation.
14
It again illustrates the issue with Schumer and Pelosi. Where are their voices to properly position the SCOTUS decision as a way to harm Democrats and the representatives of the working class. When will they wake up?
7
When will they wake up? Probably at this point, never...as they've been asleep at the switch for years now...
7
It’s time to let these unelected fascists know what’s what. Just like other Trump officials, the Trump boot lickers on the SC must be shunned, continually harassed, and be made to feel the unwelcome outcasts they are by every right thinking person. They are vile and disgusting individuals, corrupt to their very core. They deserve no courtesy, no assistance.
4
Plutocrats of world unite! You have nothing to lose but your humanity.
6
The key problem here is that the non-members have been getting the same salary, work rules, benefits and other contract provisions that the union members get. It seems for public unions, it might make sense to limit the terms of their collective bargaining to apply solely to union members. Union members could actually get a better deal, given that non-members would then get shafted to make up the difference. This would then drive membership in the unions up. Of course, unions that can't be efficient or effective would disappear or be replaced by other bargaining units. I don't see why a federal judge might choose to amplify the Janus ruling and simply strike down any laws regarding "exclusive representation" (that unions must bargain for everyone in the shop, member or not) as this rule similarly interferes with free speech (you have work rules imposed on you). This would restore your right to get screwed by your employer and the other workers.
9
Unionized government employees is a dumb concept in the first place. Anything that restricts their power is a win for the taxpaying public.
15
Yeah, cause everyone agrees that people employed to deliver government to people should work for free. You know, because you pay taxes.
12
I'm sure the outlawing public sector unions will result in our getting the best possible government to serve our needs as citizens.
2
I have never been part of a union. All of my work was right to work jobs. Can a person with knowledge about Unions answer my questions? Hopefully, the answers have no political agenda supporting pro or anti-union.
1. Mark Janus has paid union dues for some years. Are there some many years to become vested before a person get a pension? Does Mark Janus get the pension?
2. Since he has the right to NOT join the union, is his contract going to be different from the collective bargaining contract?
2
While the union typically does negotiate the contract for its workers and the contract does deal with pension issues, his membership in the union doesn't determine if he gets a pension or not. That is a state law issue. Vesting time periods vary from state to state. Some states have a 10 year vesting period, some 5. I live in MA. The vesting period is 10 years. Public and charter school teachers are all members of the pension system, as mandated by state law. I'm not sure what the situation is with private and parochial school teachers is.
So far, to my knowledge, unions negotiate a contract that covers all employees in a certain group (teachers, paras etc.) I'm not in a 'right to work' state, so we don't have the free-rider issue here. I"m sure you will see some laws cropping up that relieve unions of the requirement to serve free riders. Governor Cuomo has already signed such a bill into law.
4
In answer to part of your question, the figurehead plaintiff, Mr. Janus, who, in fact, was backed by big money interests in this case, has never paid union dues. What he was required to pay was a fee directly covering collective bargaining, processing grievances and other services which the union provides him. He was never required to pay the portion of the dues covering the cost of lobbying and other political activities. Now the lucky Mr. Janus gets to enjoy all the union benefits scott free, on the backs of his fellow employees who pay their dues. At least he gets this undeserved free ride until the union collapses because of a lack of funding.
5
Public employee unions have negotiated overly generous pension benefits that are now set to bankrupt many local and state government entities. Their greed is forcing the reduction or elimination of other important government services from public education and public safety. Their influence, especially in blue cities and states, is unmatched by any other interest group. This ruling puts a check on their power and restores some balance to the equation.
9
States are going broke - like Illinois - because they rob from public pension funds that workers pay into, yet they still have to payback what they’ve “borrowed”.
1
I think the decision was correct. How is a worker's free speech and preference protected if unions are allowed to force him to pay dues when he has rejected the idea?
7
As a counterpoint I have to interject that the public service unions held politicians to their members will so as to trade votes for exorbitantly favorable labor contracts. Over the years the combination of salary, medical and retirement benefits essentiually bankrupted many municipalities and gave their members (of which I am one) an overly generous pakcage considerably greater than comparable jobs in the private sector. It was simply not sustainable and while those benefits have been considerably reduced to new hires, the pushback has been going on for years and this is simply one more step. For example it is not at all uncommon for a retiree to receive an amount from pension and social security that is ABOVE the maximum salary the empolyee ever made while working. And that amount is for life and the life of the spouse. Add to that lifetime family medical at extremely generous rates and you see the influence of public unions and public politicians cozy relationship. Like it or not we had to pay the 'agency fee' but mostly, given the above, we liked it.
11
But I've not heard of any of the workers who don't want to pay a fee to a union to cover their share of the costs of negotiations turning down their pensions or higher wages, etc. Remember, earlier cases/decisions had already separated out fees paid for political activities and the contract negotiation part. It was just the latter that this decision today was about. If these people have integrity they will not accept higher wages and other benefits that the union gets for them.
8
@NYer: It's "unsustainable," as you say, only because exorbitantly wealthy corporations and individuals refuse to pay taxes to support the society upon whose labor they built their massive wealth. They are waging class warfare against the rest of us, making enemies of every sensible American. At this point, I am beginning to think that the revolution cannot come soon enough.
9
At the behest of Janus, SCOTUS has ruled in favor of freeloading. As far as I can tell, Janus did not have to pay the portion of his dues that would have gone to politicking; what was the non-politicking "destination" he did not want to pay for? He used SCOTUS to give freeloaders the right to union benefits while paying no dues at all. If we're leery of his will to protect children from deadbeat dads, will his union have to defend him?
9
great news. Unions have for decades demanded that their members pay for political ideas. That is not the function of a union. You want to support the left or the right? Do it with your own $$.
11
Huzzah! This is a truly great day for the freedom and liberty of beleaguered union workers around the country.
2
It seems only fitting that, if they don't pay for the union's activities, the non-members should not get any union-negotiated wages or benefits. Let those who choose to exercise their "free speech" use that speaking ability to negotiate their own agreement with the employer. Let the employer choose to provide whatever pay, benefits, and work rules are negotiated by the individual non-union workers and the bosses. For the union, for those workers who choose to speak through collective action, "freely speaking" with their union dues, let them benefit from the wages, benefits and work rules the union negotiates. But why should the court and our laws sanction getting 'something for nothing'? Clearly that's unfair, and further, clearly that deprives the union members of the value of their speech. These government agencies should tell the non-union employees to step right up, on their own individual basis, and negotiate away. Or, more likely, tell them the deal, and tell them to "take a hike" if they don't like it. In other words, a Trump deal... Yet another instance where those most likely to get damaged are the very Trump supporters who put him in place.
13
The court was right but so are you Mr Brokaw. Let those who do not want to be part of the union fend for themselves. I am hoping that this will have the reverse effect then the predictions being made. This could strengthen unions by forcing those who who were whining about union dues face the harsh realities of life without representation thereby leading to the realization that hey, joining is not so bad.
7
On the other hand, now those who work very hard can be rewarded based on merit without having to suppress their wages because of union pay constraints.
Between the so-called "right to work" legislation in Republican states which under the guise of "freedom of choice" is in reality just driving down wages and now this public sector decision, is systematically tuning America into another China/Mexico.
We will watch with interest in the coming months and years as the standard of living in America especially of the middle and lower classes goes in the dumper.
6
So corporations are people but unions are not. Got it. And money is speech. Got it.
Therefore, corporations have free speech rights allowing ownership to spend money and speak publicly and loudly on behalf of all members. Got it.
By statute in 28 states, public sectors unions already can't use their dues to speak politically. Got it.
Now, public sector unions can't collectively bargain on behalf of members required to pay for their representation. Members get benefits but can opt out of paying for those benefits. Got it.
Public sector workers are citizens who now have less effective means to bargain for wages and benefits on their behalf. This effort was funded by wealthy conservatives with boundless greed. And it's reprehensible.
Got it?
11
Of course the right wing supreme court went after labor unions. They saw that unions helped regular people and not big business.
9
As someone who's always lived in 'right to work' states, I can tell you first hand the abuses companies, large and small, get away with when there are no unions. The abuse of so-called 'salary' positions is most egregious. At one job, I was told many times that despite my position being 'salaried', I was expected to stay at work for 40 hours/week regardless - even when I completed all work in ~35 hours (which happened rarely). Once, they even threatened to start keeping track of my hours, but changed their minds when they realized I was averaging 43 hours/week. On the flip side, when I worked for 50 hours (which happened a lot), I got zero overtime. This was for a job that paid $35k/year.
Then there are the lack of benefits. One company I worked for refuse to offer even minimal benefits, like basic health insurance or a zero match 401(k). Another did offer health insurance, but with such a high deductible that you had to pour money into an HSA to make up the difference.
Eventually, I was lucky enough to break free and find a good job at a company that actually values its employees, but the sheer number of abusive companies in right to work states is staggering.
Right to work is a lie, plain and simple. There's no benefit to the employee. It just give business more freedom to fire, underpay, and exploit their workers. I would gladly pay a monthly due to the union (if there were one) to guarantee that this nonsense wasn't permitted.
6
Right to get abused by your employer with no recourse.
1
Unions appear to be unable to compete effectively for members and have relied on government to force contributions. What could be more Democratic than that (pun intended)?
5
Here here. We need to re-institute the 16 hour work day seven days a week with no vacation or sick time. And get them kids back in the fields and mines. Make America Grate Again
8
Well then. Non-members should not be covered by any union agreements. Let them find out what kind of deals they can make on their own.
7
What if those non-members get a better deal?
Compelling dues is just one way to build solidarity. Now, unions will have to persuade those they represent to contribute. That may sound like a "market" solution, but it's likely to get pretty messy. Even legitimate peer pressure - nobody likes a free-loader - will be bad for morale. And some unions will surely be "aggressive" in their "fund-raising" efforts. This is a bad decision.
4
One of the reasons government has become so monolithic, gargantuan, unwieldy and increasingly omnipotent is due to the power of government unions. When taxpayers have to fund the salaries of workers who almost invariably support and lobby for bigger government and bigger salaries which are often at odds with the best interests of said taxpayers, you have an inequitable situation that puts the taxpayer at a disadvantage. That is why the behavior of Strzok and others in the Justice Department is so reprehensible. They are being paid by the taxpayers and they are engaging in virulent partisan politics. Many government unions do the same thing. If you work for the government, you should be apolitical because you have a vested interest in expanding and increasing the cost of government.
10
I’m now anticipating a decision that says you can’t force people to contribute to Social Security and Medicare.
3
Unions will now have to provide better value for the money. They might start by lowering their dues.
7
This was inevitable. As with the Obamacare mandate, people will vote against their own interests if they are compelled to pay. Given the choice, I'll bet Americans would decline auto insurance, let alone union dues.
5
I was an administrator for a public entity with a union shop. Collective bargaining through union negotiations allow staff to get raises and maintain benefits. And, based on my experience working with boards from the business world, there would be no or miniscule raises if the staff was not unionized, and benefits would certainly be cut. This decision is another nail in the coffin for middle class workers, as it will weaken unions and it is given to us by a politically slavish supreme court. The republicans just won't be satisfied until we are all poor and they are working to get us there in many ways, including the courts.
11
Public employees should never have been allowed to unionize.
Workers who don't support the union with dues can look forward to being the workers who won't be entitled to due process. Oh, well, just like second class citizens and immigrants? Right Mr. Trump?
9
Public sector unions are democracies -- they have regular elections and vote for the officers that run them. The positions their officers take represent the majority of their members, who can and do vote out those officers if they don't like what they're doing.
That is why the right-wing, conservatives, and Republicans abhor unions: Because they do not support democracy -- government of, by, and for the people. Today's Supreme Court decision makes that abundantly clear.
2
Another 5 - 4 decision split across political lines. This cannot continue. This not a court of justice or the law, but an ideological caldron. These contentious split decisions for matters of grave import present an existential risk to the continuation of the U.S.
5
This has been the law for federal employees since forever. There are good reasons for that. The Court simply followed the law rather than their palpitating hearts.
Private sector unions are another thing altogether. When there is a union-made alternative, that is what we always buy. Our cars are UAW-built, always. We support unions with every penny we spend, but we expect those who disagree to follow their own consciences. Just show some personal integritt: if you don’t support unions with your own money, don’t expect others to.
3
Using Alito's own rationale, all coporations which donate money are under same logic. Every shareholder's free speech rights are violated if they don't agree with donations made by corporate boards.
8
This is a disaster for the working class. You know who it's not a disaster for? The companies that just got a tax break, the Governor of Illinois--Bruce Rauner--who is a multi-millionaire, the Koch Brothers, the businesses that can fire employees without cause. Businesses will never empower workers unless forced to by the government and we've seen where that's going today.
9
The Supreme Court has unwittingly put another nail in the coffin of American capitalism with this decision. As wages continue to be depressed for the majority of our citizens along with their purchasing power, we edge closer to the collapse of the entire system. Increased consumer and government debt will no longer be able to prevent the inevitable. The economic Ponzi scheme will have ended.
5
The angry comments about this opinion and about Justice Gorsuch's role might be better aimed at our Constitution, which should have been amended years ago to allow for reasonable term limits for federal judges (at the least for Supreme Court Justices). As well, the size of the Court should be increased, say to 15 or 17 Justices. There are certainly enough brilliant legal minds in the country so that the quality of the members would not be adversely effected. What happens presently is that when a nomination is available, there is almost a blood duel or struggle in Congress over the appointment because Congressional members realize that an appointment will often last for decades with someone appointed at age 40 capable of being on the bench until age 90. One member of a Court of only nine members, appointed for a lifetime simply has too much power. We have had several examples of Justices who had certainly begun to lose their mental acuity as they aged. If such a proposal were adopted (term limits and an increased bench) there would be the additional advantage of the American people not having to watch the embarrassing spectacle of nominees having to perform contortions of unseemly disingenuousness regarding their positions on important issues during confirmation hearings in order to be confirmed. (or at least with the life or death importance of each nominee being reduced, this tendency should be diminished).
3
Does this mean that workers who elect to not join a union also do not participate in benefits earned for worker by that union? Ah, didn't think so.
5
I'm OK with "right to work" laws whether for the public sector or the private sector, as long as there would be a concomitant "right to represent" law.
Unions should be able to choose to bargain ONLY for workers who were members before an agreement is signed. The employer could treat non-members any way they liked.
Multiple unions should be allowed for the same type of worker; this would give workers more say over the quality of their representation. It would also mean that workers would not have to support an idea they don't agree with.
If this is currently illegal it should be legalized.
Would employers, whether public or private sector, find this too complicated? Too bad!
1
Interesting.
A simple question-
Going forward, will there be both union and non union contracts?
4
This is a great Supreme Court decision reinforcing our right to freedom of speech. Corrupt unions should not be permitted to expropriate millions of dollars in "dues" and contribute those funds to corrupt politicians to advance political agendas. If unions want to raise money for Democrats, they must obtain each member's consent. I believe these corrupt unions will find that many members will deny that consent.
7
These aren't dues, they're fees to cover the cost of collective bargaining. What do you propose to do about the free-rider problem?
1
Labor Unions get their power to represent workers from The Federal Government, from the Wagner act and the formation of the NLRB. When the federal government fails to protect the rights of unions, and thereby workers, from effectively representing the interests of workers we see a significant decline in union membership and in wages and incomes across the country.
Unions, and workers, rely on having a government reception and representative of their interests. That only happens through political action (MONEY).
1
Meanwhile, rich people and corporations can spend an unlimited amount of money to influence elections.
4
I belong to 3 unions. I am not always happy with what I pay but I know the value of collective bargaining. One of my unions has kept my health insurance reasonable and though the raises have been slim lately I do get one to offset the cost of living. I have been in situations where there isn't a union, and you are at the mercy of the employers. Stay in your union and get involved. Unions, like everything else, need an overhaul but without them and collective bargaining you are in trouble when it comes to company greed.
2
You cannot forcibly take property away from an individual, even if you are trying to get more. The fact that coercion was enshrined into law doesn't make it right.
2
What’s stopping employers from laying off unionized workers, and retaining people who voluntarily nonunionized themselves?
1
I'm going to start collecting my pension this year (provided by my union: Actors Equity Association. So grateful I'll be able (with prudent savings and social security) to retire without anxiety.
Feels ironic that for actors, "going Equity" i.e.. joining the union, is a right of passage that can be a difficult decision (will I price myself out of the market), but once made is usually a badge of pride.
I certainly appreciate the excellent medical insurance provided with union contracts too.
Do anti union folks think that the Walmarts or GMs of the world are going to ding their bottom line and stock options in order to provide a living wage to anyone??
Without the tool of collective bargaining workers are chattel......but then , I don't care. Do u?
5
So if the new criterion is that if I don't "agree with its positions" that I "should not be forced to pay fees to support its work", then the fact that I disagree with Donald Trump, Betsy DeVos, Scott Pruitt, etc. etc. then means I do not have to pay taxes?
Am I interpreting that correctly?
3
Why should unions have less power than churches? Churches can extract money from their minions for political purposes and now unions can't? Oh, I see: The former can wrap their complaint in two constitutional privileges, religion and free speech. The former only one, free speech. Numbers win in more way than one.
I was under the impression, one of the sacred privileges of the First Amendment was to protect political speech. Clearly I was wrong; I missed the part defining what forum it would be permitted.
Churches dont deduct donations from members paychecks.
4
No, but some extract a tithe under pain of spiritual misfortune if they don’t.
1
The majority again reveal their willingness to stretch and twist the Constitution to fit their bias.
Workers who benefit from union negotiations, and who are already protected from contributing to the political efforts of the union? NO, that existing protection didn't outright kill unions, so hey, sorry, we're going to overstep.
Workers who are legally entitled to contraception benefits? Well, NO, the owner of the company insists his personal free speech applies to a commercial enterprise, so he's allowed to deny the women access to benefits they're entitled to.
Let's find a bright side. At least the Court didn't decide, in the Hobby Lobby fiasco, that the female employees shouldn't be paid at all, since the court decision is forcing them to spend their pay on contraception.
1
The Supreme Court apparently takes their marching orders from the same right wing corporatists that own the Republican leadership. They are not part of any solution, they are a part of the problem. We must et out the vote and recapture the checks and balances that are now absent from our government.
1
My heartfelt congratulations to Republicans, and particularly to the corporations Republicans serve!
Destroying unions has long been a top Republican priority. Why? First, in the rare truthful words of the exultant Donald Trump, this win is a "big loss for the coffers of Democrats."
More importantly, unions have long given workers unacceptable countervailing power against corporations. Shareholder Value Capitalism is a zero-sum game: Workers must lose so that executives and shareholders can win. Unions upset that rightful balance, and help workers steal from shareholders' pockets.
While this win applies only to government workers, it's still significant. Just as Reagan's heroic destruction of the public air traffic controllers' union paved the way for the current moribund condition of private unions, this decision paves the way for the ultimate goal of entirely eliminating organized labor and its pernicious drain on shareholder value.
Of course, this victory had a price beyond what the Koch Brothers contributed. Mitch McConnell made it possible by blocking the Garland nomination, at the cost of destroying the institutional credibility of the Senate. And the Supreme Court forfeited its own credibility when the Republican justices put their partisan duty first. Those institutions now exist solely to serve Republicans and their donors.
The only sadness amidst today's joy is that the Koch Brothers may not live to see the ultimate fulfillment of their dreams.
5
We have a government that is supposed to follow the rule of law, including the Supreme Court. The fact that the procedures in place to appoint the justices to the Supreme Court were violated by the leadership of the Republican Party was a good example, pre-Trump, that things were not well in the Republican Party at that time (and frankly haven't been for a long time). The fact that Justice Scalia died during a Democratic Presidency was unfortunate for Republicans/Conservatives, but that situation has happened many times in the past and was hardly unprecedented. What WAS unprecedented was Senator McConnell's decision not to allow a vote on the justice nominated by a sitting President. Lawlessness begets lawlessness, unfortunately, and if Republicans continue to not follow the spirit of the laws in our country, we are headed for a revolution. In the past 20 years, we have had 2 Republican presidents elected in highly disputed elections. They are, fortunately in my opinion, becoming a truly minority party. We'll know for sure when Texas flips, which should be in the next decade or so. Then we can either have a democracy properly ruled by a majority of the people, or a lawless country like so many other countries where a minority of the people rules the country through illegal practices (Syria, Russia, etc.). Hang on. I do also believe the leaders of the Democratic Party is complicit in this due to their cowardly inaction.
1
If unions provide real value for their members then folks will join. If not, they won't.
2
I have a friend with a clerical job at the VA. She started at the VA in mid career after working in the private sector for several employers. She tells me about the slackers she works with. People who do maybe 10 minutes of work in an hour and spend the rest of their day yacking with their coworkers. It’s her assessment that many of these VA “lifers” could never hold onto a job in the private sector.
Their union goes to bat for even the worst slackers. About the only thing a manager can hope for is to get a slacker transferred to some other department.
If weakening public sector unions means we taxpayers may have a better chance to get a day’s work for a day’s pay, I’m all for it.
10
Trump tweeted "Supreme Court rules in favor of non-union workers who are now...able to support a candidate of his or her choice without having those who control the Union deciding for them."
Ironic and hypocritical. See how Trump twists things?He presents the destruction of unions as individual "choice" over the benefit of the whole. While unions do have problems that need to be addressed through regulations, they have historically provided strength and bargaining power against the tyrrany of those in power (the corporate managers), to ensure against abuses and preserve human rights, like safe working conditions, fair wages, and benefits.
There is a reason we need unions, just as there is a reason we need a representative democracy that benefits the whole. The only way for a collective of people to fight against a powerful few is to be organized.
1
"The combined 2013 compensation for all 11 of NJEA’s highest compensated employees came to $6,400,000. That’s a lot of union dues out of the pockets of hard-working teachers averaging over 11 times less than their top bosses — teachers whose dues are automatically withheld from their paychecks by local districts. And that’s a lot of taxpayer dollars from the 99% of New Jersey citizens who average over 13 times less."
"In 2016 -- the most recent year for which this data is available -- the NJEA gave their top leadership a 42 percent pay raise. On average, the fourteen officers identified as NJEA leaders earned more than $530,000 -- up from $379,000 the year before."
Union dues at work.
5
Justice Kennedy, the closest thing to a moderate on the conservative side, has just announced his retirement. This is only a sign of things to come. There was a lot of short-sightedness on the left, in all camps. You can blame Russian interference. You can blame McConnell's "stolen seat." None of that changes the fact there was a lot of unnecessary internal squabbling. With the election as close as it was in so many key states, it was entirely winnable. The consequences will last for decades.
In some ways, I have more respect for Mitch McConnell than many of those on the left. He at least understood how high the stakes were, and was willing to do what it took to get his way. Even as he did it, those on the left were still too busy stabbing each other's backs and forming a circular firing squad.
i wonder if the pay scales and benefits of non-union members should be lower than those of union members. that way no one gets a free ride on the collective bargaining train. just a thought...
2
The Republican controlled judges have been chipping away at workers’ right for at least 30 years. During the same period, the U.S. middle class has lost purchasing power, and worker productivity has increased for the benefit of management and to a lesser extent shareholder wealth. Let’s elect more Republicans!!!
2
Any decision that weakens teacher unions is a big win for education. Make no mistake: Their steadfast opposition to things like merit pay, the firing of bad teachers, and school choice hurts our children.
6
Even President Franklin Roosevelt had issues concerning labor unions in the public sector.
6
Nobody should be forced to join a union, but if you don't you shouldn't take the wages they've helped you to earn, nor the hours and days you work, nor many other benefits you reap because of their work on labor's behalf.
3
I was a union worker in a local out of the United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters in my younger days, so I understand the worth and purpose of unions -- they are to protect workers from being crushed by rapacious industrial giants.
So who are public sector unions protecting their members from? That's right - you and me and the other state, local and federal taxpayers of America who pay their salaries.
The result has been ruinous pension and worker disability deals that have bankrupted many counties and that are the biggest single outlay of taxpayer funds in many places in America.
Public sector unions were never more than a cynical deal by Democratic politicians to create a reliable source of cash. It is well past time that their power is curbed.
5
This decision will have a negative effect on the delivery of nursing care to patients in hospitals.
When I began my nursing career in the early 1980s the first hospital I worked at was non-union. To say it took advantage of the nursing staff would be an understatement. As a Graduate Nurse (GN) still awaiting my board results I was assigned to a 52 bed Med-Surg unit. I was responsible for the care of 26 patients including medications, narcotics, skilled nursing treatments, IVs, and charting. Some days I was assigned an aide, if I was lucky I was assigned a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) to assist with patient care. LPN’s can pass medications and deliver some skilled nursing care. Most nights I stayed to chart after my shift, admin made us clock out.
After accounting for two med passes and skilled nursing care I had less than 20 mins to spend with each patient per 8 hour shift barring an emergency.
I lasted three months. I was in danger of losing my RN license before I even received it.
As soon as I got my board results showing I passed I transferred to a unionized hospital.
On a similar sized Med-Surg unit I was assigned 8 patients during my 8 hour shift. I had all the same responsibilities with access to a shared nurses aide. I was able to spend time getting to know my patients and their special needs beyond what I learned in change of shift report. I remained at this hospital eventually transferring to the OR until I moved away. I and my knowledge were respected.
6
Please don't tell me the SCOTUS is a- political. These 5to4 decision would be 5to4 " Democratic" if Garland were appointed last year instead or Gorsuch. Of course the Supreme Court is political, and this one is dangerously political as it seems to be bent on overturning precedence. Also the " Muslim Ban" decision is a bit terrifying. Are these 5 conservative Justices enamored of Trump? Think about another Trump appointee. It doesn't take much more to diminish our democracy, even destroy it with a demagogue like Trump.
1
With the move of this court to the far right, there is no longer any branch of the American government working on behalf of average citizens. Is this what the founding fathers intended?
1
The Supreme Court is now the Supreme Corporate Court and soon it will become the Supreme Trump Court. Democracy in the United States is hanging by a thin thread as the Court, Congress and the White house continue to chip away at the rights of the middle class and the poor. Religious freedom only applies to Christians, Corporations are more important than real persons, and the demonization by the Trump White House of minorities is accelerating. Wake up America, or after the 2018 elections you may wake up to a living nightmare.
1
The republicans lied to us about climate change to protect their funding from corporate polluters.
The republicans assisted corporations and dark money interests in destroying pensions, and unions, in this country in order to first impoverish and then silence us.
The republican supreme court is operating like an extension of the republican party and has begun to dismantle worker protections in line e with Trumps twisted vision for our country.
The republicans appear to be well on their way to converting all Americans into placid, uncomplaining, thoroughly beaten down, cash cows.
And when we are dead? They will grind our bones to make their bread.
Unfair in thought word and deed.
Is POTUS ready to rule that mgt. in companies can opt out of paying for their medical and other benefits because they don't agree with the way top mgt. rules?
So does paying federal taxes violate my first ammendment rights because the Trump administration endorses political views that are at odds with my beliefs? When can I opt out of those?
5
This is important as public sector unions aligned with Democrats have pipelined tax dollars into their pockets and political machines in Blue States. Taxpayers are powerless to negotiate with public sector unions who are bleeding our states dry, like here with Malloy in CT.
4
Trumps tweet says it all, party over country. This has nothing to do with whether unions are good, bad, upside down or sideways.
1
There are many things wrong with unions. Many solidify mediocrity in the workplace, protect unambitious and unproductive workers, and force the few to compensate for the failing of others. This is a huge problem, but, history proves one fact: Unions are better than no unions. They are to the workplace what democracy is to the nation. I fear for my country!
4
My union worked tirelessly, under horrible pressure, to get workers a good contract with decent raises and protections. Our working lives now command greater respect and accountability. The freeloaders who benefit from having our Union are shameful. Thirty-five percent of registered Dems stayed home in 2016. Thirty-three percent of Independents did, too (source: The 5:38). This decision, along with the Muslim Ban and the anti-female decision, should wake everyone up.
2
This is one of the reasons Mitch McConnell stole the Democratic Supreme Court seat! It's unfortunate that the Republicans have convinced their followers the seat was "saved," for abortion and 2nd amendment purposes. At the same time they have also told their followers that unions are bad for them. The middle class will continue in decline and the wealth gap will keep increasing. How far down do the people have to be beat into the ground, before they realize what is happening?
2
If I followed the logic of this dopey decision by Roberts, Kennedy, Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch, then I should not be paying all the federal and state taxes currently being paid since I disagree with the political activities and positions taken by the elected officials that represent my district. These justices are nothing more than Republican (i.e., Party of Trump) politicians in judicial robes.
3
As a long-time President of a local with nearly 600 members, I bid farewell to the agency shop sycophants. They demanded the most attention, were the weakest workers, and were a giant pain. Yes, my local will be stronger, more nimble, and more functional without the dead weight.
1
The consequences of Hillary Clinton’s defeat, and President Trump’s nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court (and the Republican blockade of President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland) has resulted in an extreme lurch toward right-wing conservatism that will define our nation well beyond the next generation. This is all happening at the behest of the “lefter-than-thou” crowd as they continue to shoot themselves in the foot convinced that such pain will purify their sanctimonious souls.
1
Another stolen decision...
But union households divided evenly in 2016. They voted their unions out of existence by voting for Donald Trump.
We Democrats need a different policy to appeal to working voters. The union movement is dying.
1
Can unions arrange it so that those who don't wish to pay dues don't profit from increases in wages, benefits, and better working conditions that those unions win for their members? Hypocrisy should not be rewarded.
1
One more sad ruling from the Trump court.
What other rulings can we expect to see that disfavors immigrants, workers, civil rights and ignores the excesses of our oligarchs.
1
Whether you agree or disagree with this deciaion, of nothing else, this it glaringly illustrates that the Conservative members of the Court are the true activists judges.
Conservatives for years, and politicians such as Reagan, Bush, Trump, and all of their media lapdogs, have painted more liberal judges across the country as "activists," "legislators," and judges trampling on "original intent."
There is nothing more judicially active than ignoring the principle of stare decisis. This is what happens when Conservatives take power. They strip political power from the least powerful and wrap it all up in First Amendment and Freedom paper to please the Conservative base. Citizens United for example.
2
So you think Ferguson - separate but equal - should never have been overturned?
Well, there goes the middle class. The middle class was created by the union workers who fought, and died for the 8 hour workday,etc. Now the SCOTUS, which has been bought by big business/GOP will undo years of progress,and do the bidding of their masters. Special thanks to the "teacher" in CA, who spearheaded big business/charter schools in another court case with the same premise: non-union people get to collect the same benefits that union people suffered/died for. All because the unions paid contributions to those who would advocate for the worker instead of the business owner(the"POLITICAL" complaint of the quislings who filed the case to start with)
If the DCCC, the center-right, wealthy, corporate loving Democrats had shut down the government when McConnell wouldn't allow Obama's Supreme Court pick to pass, we wouldn't be in the situation. Neo-liberal labor crushing, agenda-driven corporate Dems: Pelosi, Schumer, Clinton along with the DCCC have destroyed the once united middle-class, blue-collar, environmentally and people loving party for the soul-crushing almighty dollar and the support of the uber-wealthy 20% centrist Democrats.
2
Then folks who don't pay union dues should be ineligible for anything negotiated by the union: pay raises, benefits, anything.
3
This court is illegitimate. It's 5-4 rulings are anti-democratic actions unworthy of the respect of the country. Not saying the rulings will not be followed to the letter - they will. But the public should greet each 5-4 ruling as something that Democrats will overturn one day, even if they have to pack the court to remedy the egregious behavior of the GOP.
1
Well, now why not just negotiate two tiered wages instead? If you can do it for "new hires" why can't you do that same thing for existing workers? Those covered by a CBA get higher wages or different/better benefits. Those not covered suffer the consequences of lower pay and benefits. Surely unions cannot be compelled (law citation?) to bargain on behalf of non union workers. You still have the ability to form a union via a vote of the majority of all workers. You just cannot collect dues from those who don't belong.
Rgrds-Ross
2
"9 Black Robes, One Empty"
OK, 40 years of precedent gone! Workers must go 'back-to-the-streets' for fairness, when corporations are given a huge tax break that many did not even want!
Yes, in a climate of indentured servitude, where wages have not kept up with cost-of-living, and many employers cannot find enough workers, there will be social unrest.
Unions and politicians both should remember the 'bad-old-days' when organized crime 'controlled' them. Assuredly there will be unintended consequences for these ignorant decisions(!)
"Education is the cure for Illiteracy, but the only cure for Ignorance is Time and Consequences"(.)
Members of the trump cult, along with their dear leader, are dancing around declaring that this is a victory for "free speech," or "workers' rights," because now workers don't have to pay "democrat" unions who support political campaigns. Of course, as is always the case with a cult leader and his minion: they are immune to facts. This wasn't about unions supporting political campaigns; that case was already settled, and public sector unions were forbidden to use dues money to support political causes. This case was decided on ideological partisanship: just like Citizens United, the ruling is designed to further weaken the rights and voice of workers and average Americans.
I was willing to give Gorsuch the benefit of the doubt that he would interpret the law with reason; I was wrong. He's a partisan lackey, a right-wing activist in service, like all right-wing activists, of the oligarchy, the rich, the powerful.
1
We clearly need a revolution to restructure our political parties and system to represent a Democracy again. The person or persons with the guts to try it, would first be ignored. If they could not be bought and If the movement picked up steam, they would be discredited by the current establishment. If that did not work, they would lose their job and finances, with a subsequent orchestrated character assassination. Finally, At the end of the day, and if they were still around, tactics would be used as if they were foreign combatants. Like the FBI destroyed the Black Panthers in the 70’s, a government created secret counter group, would murder the movements leaders . That is precisely why so many are key board protestors.
Just pay your dues. Encourage others to pay their dues. My union negotiates for a fair salary, heath care and benefits as part of my salary, all of which I pay into monthly. Fox news right wing bashing of unions does not destroy the reality of collective bargaining. We are united with our employers to work towards a sane and civil society.
1
This is all part of undoing the radicalized liberal decisions of a Supreme Court that began the process of weaponizing the Constitution with disastrous decisions based on liberal ideology and NOT the Constitution. Unions have collected BILLIONS of dollars based on past unfounded decisions. If this is a worthy thing...then pass a law. Many decisions from 40 years ago need to be revisited.
2
"Scab" will now take on a new meaning in the governmental workplace, despite the "fairy dust" spread by the always out of touch Alito. Mr. Janus appears to be of retirement, or near retirement age, but other deadbeats may not be as fortunate to escape the inevitable harsh backlash from their fellow employees, who justifiably pay for all the benefits they receive resulting from union membership. Labor peace? No, the robed Gang of 5 has swatted a hornets' nest.
1
A true confederacy of dunces. Yes, it is fine to ignore "stare decisis," in this case, but in the recent ruling of the travel ban, no such distinction was made when referring to the Ping vs. the US case ruling which was based upon racism and using that in part to approve Trump's racist travel ban. This is a loss for both Democrats and working stiffs alike. First Amendment good when refusing to serve gay but not ok when refusing to serve lying mouthpiece of POTUS. The damage to the Democracy of this nation grows by the day.
1
What the Court effectively said was this.
Public employees are over paid goof offs.
We need to bust their unions to reduce their pay.
1st amendment arguments are nonsense.
We invoke the 1st amendment because we don't want to say what our true goal is.
That Alito, Thomas Gorsuch believe the above cruel nonsense is not surprising.
I expected better from Roberts and Kennedy.
John Roberts' confirmation hearing statement,
“…Judges and Justices are servants of the law, not the other way around. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules, they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules, but it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire.
Judges have to have the humility to recognize that they operate within a system of precedent shaped by other judges equally striving to live up to the judicial oath, and judges have to have modesty to be open in the decisional process to the considered views of their colleagues on the bench."
Lies like Trump!
1
The lower middle class and the poor are becoming less and less able to vote. The republicans and big business have cheated by various tricks like making a voter show multiple IDs to vote, decreasing voting hours, making marijuana users felons who cannot vote, etc etc. They have even delayed supreme court nominees to stack the court with right wingers. And the middle class voters have not seemed to resist these changes. Middle class voters don't even know that political campaigns are financed largely by rich individuals and corporations, unlike Europe and Canada. When you become uninformed and uninvolved as an electorate, then democracy dies.
1
Excellent, fair and just result
1
Does this mean we get retroactive refunds for our 30 years of public service 'agency fees' (local dues)? It must be _at least_ 50k $US per employee. Where would that come from? Social Security? Medicare? ... just kidding.
Along with collective bargaining, there goes more health care choices, child care expense, living wages, defense against false accusations (looking at you Sarah Chucklebee Sanders) and job stability that public unions help us earn, manage and keep. The real problem is that these free-wheeling right-wing market-can-do-no-wrong types is their utter ignorance of what public service is and what it means. It is something bigger than any one of us. That is why public servants should be able to be heckled when they are 'off the clock' and at a, say (Mexican, no less) restaurant. That public choice does not end at five o'clock (or earlier, Mr. Trump!) American ideals allow eggs and rotten tomatoes to be thrown too, whenever warranted. Do I like it? No. But the public trust and public service are bigger than any one person, especially Trump. This putative administration's false equivalencies must be held to account.
1
The day Scott Walker singed his "We Can't Afford Unions" law, every union in the country should have called a wildcat strike. And they should have stayed on strike until that pathetic and un-American law was repealed. Period.
Now, the only rights workers have left, are the ones that haven't gone before the McConnell Court - yet.
You can bet the bank that every single worker protection that goes before this kangaroo court will be made null and void.
THE UNION IS DEAD - In more ways then one.
"Wrong to work for less" is what the Orwellian "right to work" phrase must be reconstituted as.
As a dues paying member of a teacher’s union for years my only advice to any other that doesn’t want to pay their dues, get used to no one else talking to you and good luck finding someone who will lend you their key to the staff bathroom.
1
I wonder if Bernie supporters who said during the 2016 election that Clinton is no better than Trump still think so ? It would have been Judge Garland or equivalent n the Court now, not Gorsuch.
The watermark on this decision (5-4, with Gorsuch in the majority) reads "Mitch McConnell."
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/us/politics/supreme-court-nomination-...
Every single working adult in Kentucky whose interests have now been traded away should keep that in mind on November 6, when members of McConnell's gang over in the House of Representatives will be up for reelection.
https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections...
So right wingers angry that their stand of living is going down once again support actions that lower their standard of living. Scream, smear, undermine their own interests, repeat.
2
All those people who didn't vote bc they didn't like the choices or said the Supreme Court is not a reason to vote for a specific candidate, the chickens are coming home to roost. One horrible ruling after another. Today another nail in the coffin for unionized labor.
Like James Baldwin in the 50s, need to o get out of this country for a while.
1
Those that forget the evils of history are doomed for a repeat of those evils. The working people of today and the future do not deserve being put back to the sweatshop conditions of the past.
1
The truth is this court was built by and for the rich. They really could really could not careless about common people. Slowly they will eliminate every protection the common person has to use against the rich and powerful. it is an abomination.
2
Hallelujah! I encountered the frustration 35 years ago of forced membership to a union supporting the Sandinista movement in Latin America. Separating leftist political activities from worker advocacy is a canard, as there should be zero politicking. Moreover, my union only sought discord between workers and management to justify their gadfly role with a hefty "union tax" paid by all.
3
We're in Latin America?
No 5-4 supreme court decision in which Gorsuch votes in the majority should be considered legitimate or binding. Gorsuch was appointed illegitimately as the result of blatant and unprecedented political skull doggery. His votes will never ring true.
Soon to be 6-3 as Kennedy retires and another pol goes on the bench.
Elections matter. Trump’s pick to the Supreme Court was the deciding vote, yet again; a seat on the Court that was stolen from President Obama by Republican Mitch McConnell when he refused to hold even a confirmation hearing for Merrick Garland. Talk about obstruction! Now everybody that depends upon the benefits that public sector unions bring their members through collective bargaining will suffer the consequences if enough workers choose to be “free riders”. The important thing for union members to remember is that if we stick together our unions will remain strong. If you think you’d be better off without a strong public employee union take a look at the so-called “right to work” (for nothing) states. Public school teachers march in those states due to low wages that are the end result of weakened public employee unions.
#StickWithYourUnion
#ElectionsMatter
#MitchMcConnellIObstructs
While I definitely think this decision will cripple public-sector unions, I also can see how the unions have badly overplayed their hand and lost the support of the public — mostly in generous pensions, whereas private-sector employees seldom, if ever, get any pension at all. But in other ways, such as difficulty to the point of near-impossibility of firing incompetent teachers.
2
This conservatives on the Supreme Court have dealt blows to individual freedoms consistently. This is just one more example of weakening the rights of working people in the guise of free speech. Workers now have diminished power to organize and will suffer the consequences through lower wages, poor working conditions, harassment, etc. We will be only serfs to the entitled now. Not surprised but certainly disappointed. Gorsuch is fulfilling his obligations to the rich.
2
Cut to the chase - Janus is asking for lower pay and benefits because he thinks he’s overcompensated on the public dime. Ultimately he will be compensated less along with every other public employee due to this ruling.
Now ask yourself- who wants to be paid less? He’s been paid off privately by some right wing group. Or, at least his legal bills paid for.
All self haters like Janus should be outed. If you don’t pay dues you should be placed on a publicly posted listing of non-participation. They should be treated accordingly in the workplace - with heartfelt and profound derision.
1
This is the latest effort by the Republican Party to advance their trickle-down economic theory by weakening labor unions. This latest effort is a product of a decades-long anti-union campaign financed by conservative funding arms such the Koch Institute and the Walton Foundation. Republicans oppose labor unions because in theory they represent the antithesis of supply-side economics: a greater redistribution of corporate profits down toward worker wages and benefits rather than up toward executive compensation, thereby empowering workers and ultimately creating a more equitable society. Statistics prove that there is a direct correlation between the increase in executive compensation and the decrease in labor union participation. According to the Economic Policy Institute, in 1946, the height of labor union participation, unions represented 33.4 percent of workers while the top 10 percent of Americans earned roughly 33.3 percent of the nation’s income. However, by 2015, unions represented a paltry 11.1 percent of workers while the top 10 percent of Americans earned roughly 50 percent of the nation’s income. This decision is yet another reminder that America’s gross wealth and income inequality gap is being caused by Republicans in our government who are aggressively implementing trickle-down economic policies that simply have not worked to create broad economic prosperity for most Americans.
Could we not use a like argument that would prevent corporate associations, such as the Gas and Oil Industry, from being able to lobby in any way, for none of us have a choice not to use oil and gas products in this society, whether we use fossil fuel, purchase any product derivative of it, purchase anything transported by it, heat with it, etc.? Their products are so entwined in our lives that there's no means of avoiding them, so one could argue that when they use profits from our use of their products to lobby, that they are likewise shanghai-ing us, coercing us to support political parties or legislation that are anathema to our political beliefs.
The illegitimately constituted Russian-Republican majority on the Supreme Court again formally declares that instead of a constitutional democratic republic as originally intended by the Founding Fathers., America henceforth will be a corporate plutocracy (kleptocracy during the Trump administration) where most Americans will be condemned to serfdom.
Mumble "goodbye" to the Great Experiment and
shout "hello" to Republican fascism.
American democracy has become a short chapter in future history books..
Sudden pick up of pace by supreme court’s conservative bench is conspicuous...
"Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
...Big loss for the coffers of the Democrats!"
At least he's honest about the true purpose of this latest in a series of 5-4 Republican rulings by the politicians in robes on our Supreme Court.
What are we the people going to do about it?
November 6, 2018 is the most important American election day since the 1860's.
If we manage to achieve a Democratic majority in the Senate, no Supreme Court nominee should receive a vote until appointed in 2021.
Civility of the majority of Americans is a weakness our great nation can no longer afford.
1
Hey, Mark Janus—are you getting paid and getting the benefits that AFSCME negotiated for you? But that was never the point was it? Your handlers have achieved what they want: compliant employees willing to work for less and for no benefits; whether they work in the public or private sector. Wage growth has been anemic to stagnant for thirty or so years. And that was with the remaining active unions still in the field. Without the unions . . . “How low can you go?”
Ain't schaudenfreude wonderful! I can hear all the progressives screaming - from this decision and yesterday's anti- terrorism decision. Keep crying - no Blue Wave and Trump 2020!
1
Our grand experiment is a failure.
To labor union members that voted for the don: Here's your sign.
1
"Capitalist billionaires buy Supreme Court votes, betray American labor", should be the headline.
Dilly Dilly! One huge leap forward for businesses in modern times.
Oh but of course they did.
They're on a roll beginning with the illegal Bush v Gore. Citizens United, gutting the Voting Rights Act, upholding racist gerrymandering, privileging right wing Christianity over all, which is also unConstitutional on its face. They have essentially given their stamp of approval to Trump's Islamophobia. They ignored his rants while carefully making sure to criticize the government of Colorado for not taking seriously enough a biased baker's "deeply held beliefs" about gay people.
They support monopolies apparently as of yesterday, and slash at the core of worker's rights.
Women's rights are up for grabs, the rights of minorities even to vote, gay people are second class citizens again, workers ditto, and it's Corporations Uber Alles.
Good job McConnell. You trampled on the rights of the huge number of Americans who voted for Obama. You stole the Gorsuch seat from the people. And this extremist agenda is now being crammed down our throats by the minority party.
How on earth is this within the tradition of American Constitutional democracy?
As a conservative Christian who happens to be a member of a public sector Union I welcome the ruling why should I constantly have to pay for my union to support candidates and causes I do not agree with. Suppose all your money went to support Trumps re-election would you will be willing to open your wallet and keep your mouth shut
3
Hmmm. I hate all the wars. Can I stop paying my taxes?
1
This is a great time to be a republican, though I am feeling a little sorry for liberals, but they will realize one day that this is all for their own good. Right now thanks to the constitution there is absolutely no checks on achieving anything we want. Stocks are up, up , up and so is my 401K, what a great time. I am sort of getting tired of winning. #Trumptime
1
Another victory for the money'ed class in their attempt further their goal of an oligarchy of the rich few. Trump's people
The logic of this decision minimizes the reality of economic "free riding" and maximizes a pre-New Deal/Lochner vision of "freedom" and the First Amendment. Watch what you wish for, ruling class. Similar logic could invalidate the whole idea of limited liability for corporations--which is obviously not something real men, rather than tender snowflakes, would ever need to lean on.
I witnessed the burning of management cars outside the Ohio Rubber Company in the summer of 1965 over stalled labor negotiations. It's obvious this court has little reading of history. They've simply hastened the inevitable revolution through the radicalization of young men and women who seek a reasonable compensation for their labors. I'm sure they feel safe in their ivory tower chambers, until they look around to see the Public Service workers who are expected to protect them. Sweet dreams you dark hearted men, time is not on your side.
1
'What harms one worker anywhere harms all workers everywhere."
And Trump, our supposed populist president, celebrates. Sad!
Chief Justice Roberts, in his confirmation hearing, cited the principle of stare decisis. He lied. The union issue was settled long ago. There was no reason to revisit previous decisions and upend them.
SEN. SPECTER [as read into the record by Sen. Feinstein]: “Judge Roberts, in your confirmation hearing for the circuit court you testified: ‘Roe is the settled law of the land.’ Do you mean settled for you, settled only for your capacity as a circuit judge, or settled beyond that?”
ROBERTS: “Well, beyond that. It’s settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis. And those principles, applied in the Casey case, explain when cases should be revisited and when they should not. And it is settled as a precedent of the court, yes.“
SPECTER: ”You went on to say then, ‘It’s a little more than settled. It was reaffirmed in the face of a challenge that it should be overruled in the Casey decision, so it has added precedental value.’“
ROBERTS: ”I think the initial question for the judge confronting an issue in this area, you don’t go straight to the Roe decision. You begin with Casey, which modified the Roe framework and reaffirmed its central holding.“
Another day, another 5-4 conservative decision.
Get used to it. Democrats decided to snooze through the 2010 mid-term election & ceded congressional power to the radical right during a census year (see: gerrymandering.) Then, in their infinite wisdom, they handed the executive to a Russian gangster wanna-be by running the worst campaign in recent US political history for the only person in the country more unpopular than Trump.
Since then, all the seats McConnell sandbagged or stole from Obama - including Gorsuch's are being packed with Heritage Foundation yes men. And you can't vote them out.
As I said - get used to it.
Nope, they didn't snooze through 2010. It was Obama who ran as a change agent, a man of the people (!) then turns right once in office. Another corporatist, neo-liberal he...thus the subsequent shellacking.
Yes, he talked pretty but beyond that? Not much.
2
Is anyone thinking about whether trump 's stolen court appointed can be revoked when he's voted out?
America’s urgent to-do list:
Flip Congress
Impeach president
Make Supreme Court more progressive
Otherwise we are doomed.
The Supreme Court is no longer part of our system of checks and balances. They are partisan hacks.
Reagan gave us Antonin Scalia.
George H. W. Bush gave us Clarence Thomas.
Antonin Scalia gave us George W. Bush.
George W. Bush gave us John Roberts and Samuel Alito.
John Roberts and Samuel Alito gave us Citizen's United and the elimination of the Voting Rights Act, the tacit approval of gerrymandering (by republicans), the approval of discrimination by race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation, the elimination of class action against powerful corporate entities who flagrantly harm the public.
The list could go on - at length.
These are republicans and republican ideology. Republicans despise everyday Americans and the democracy we treasure. Republicans are very bad for your heath, your economics, your freedom, your environment and your future.
Vote like your life, your children's, your elders and your grandchildren's lives and well being depend on it.
Because it does. Republicans make it more clear everyday, your lives do not matter one bit. Period.
11/6/18 - End it.
1
It's really bad when there is a stacked Supreme Court. To borrow a term from The World Cup going on right now, it is a tilted pitch.
This reminds me of what happened in late 2003, when the Supreme Court put George W. Bush in office for a second term in January, 2004 as President, even though he actually lost the vote in the final state (Florida), and the term "hanging chad" became a phrase of infamous proportion in US politics. They broke 10 laws while doing so, which were clearly spelled out by Vincent Bugliosi, the world famous prosecutor in Los Angeles. He wrote a book about this event called "The Betrayal Of America", in which he spells out (point by point) the 10 legal procedures the Supreme Court broke (or ignored). All of this coming from the man who had successfully convicted Charles Manson and his band of crazy group men and women of murder. He had previously written the wildly successful account of the trial of Manson named "Helter Skelter", which was also made into a film. A very important point is Bugliosi is a Conservative Republican. He saw right through what the Supreme Court had done, wrote this book about it. "W" never would (or should) have been the president in 2000. The Supreme Court ripped off Senator Al Gore.
One thing is understanding the freedom (license perhaps) not to belong to a Union...and another the myopia and willful forgetting, that Unions's efforts changed the exploitation of workers and the awfully dangerous conditions at work, and ungodly hours spent there...to a dignified job and salary to try to equalize the unjust treatment of greedy corporations...where capital always trumps labor. Free riders, at least in my humble opinion, are akin of our stopping paying taxes for schools, just because our kids are grown ups now. Should we be allowed to live in society, and all it's benefits, scot free, just because we are stupid enough to 'kill' solidarity, the strength of being, all of us, together in making a living, and enjoying life, however short and treacherous? Do the free-riders realize that, once Unions are eliminated, some employers will enslave workers again, at will, and with the complicity of a sold-out partisan (republican) Supreme Court?
1
Since taxpayers are the employer of public workers, are you saying American taxpayers want to enslave workers? I guessed I missed that memo.
1
Good point. Although the state may also discriminate, I was referring mainly to private and private-public companies, many times hired by the state to do people's business. Collective bargaining is a plus, no matter what the situation may be (strength in numbers).
You know, it seems that those on the right side of the bench of the US Supreme Court DO NOT know the Constitution! Their gutting of the collective bargaining, union representation, and worker's rights IS NOT A FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUE!!!
With Jeff Sessions as AG and a court with the likes of clarence "knownothing"thomas and neal "boughtandpaidfor" gorsuch, we can see just how fragile our democracy is. These thugs focus exclusively on the letter of the law and insist on using the lens of evangelical Christianity to interpret the spirit. They are determined to redress every perceived wrong of the last 50 years, and won't stop until trump and his dangerous tariffs plunge us into financial catastrophe. #RESIST #VOTE
2
Excellent news. Now let's focus on repealing the NLRA and RLA.
Why are these deadbeats given the benefits of collective bargaining ?
1
The only thing the deadbeats or freeloaders get to do is pay an amount equal to the per capita cost to a Union in negotiating and signing a contract which covers all workers in the classes of the bargaining unit covered by the contract. The deadbeats get no vote on accepting or rejecting the contract. Only those members who have paid dues and signed a membership card can vote.
The Union is required to bargain fort all those covered by the contract.
1
Best decision of the SC in years. Public unions have been raping us and are in an unholy alliance with Dems and Reps to constantly give them more and saddling the public with the debts. I am a socialist but I am a socialist for ALL Americans, this means we should ALL have a national pension/health plan in which ALL working American should contribute. None of these carve outs by the well connected and political powerful. Thank Heavens for the SC.
1
So paying some dues to the people who represent workers and negotiate and fight for them to get fair wages and benefits is rape?! Huh... who knew?!
You do realize that in most cases, federal or public sector employees who don't want to pay those fees (even though they are the ones benefiting from the collective bargaining done on their behalf) can get them refunded...
2
You are 100% correct. Public unions love to talk about how they benefit all workers, but in reality they only benefit themselves at the expense of taxpayers.
Maybe unions should set themselves up as corporations representing their members. No dues, no benefits. No one to protect you against employer abuse or represent youngin a grievance (hire your own attorney) and you deal with your state government employer as an individual. They union only works for those who are members and those who pay dues get their help.
1
Unfortunately by federal law unions are required to represent scab freeloaders.
Congratulations, Roberts. Your court is consistently the most deplorable, inhumane court ever.
1
Can unions prohibit non-dues-paying workers from benefiting from the outcome of the unions' collective bargaining? They should be able to but I bet they can't.
It's a complete crock that this is First Amendment protected political speech. No one should get the benefit of something they didn't contribute to. It's called free-riding and is discouraged in myriad ways in this country.
Unions, saviors of the middle class, have been crucified at the hands of Men in black robes who all have health care.
3
where is terence powderly when we need him
We're just lucky that President Mitch McConnell appointed Gorsuch back in 2016!
Baisically all the public union people who voted for Trump including firefighters, police and US Government employees cut their own throats .... well done ... 99% of Republican voters vote against their own economic interests ... 2016 was no exception ...
1
The dishonorable Justices Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kennedy will be remembered by historians as the five men who ripped the fabric of our democracy with their narrow minded decisions of June 25-26, 2018,
We are witnessing the destruction of America live as these jurists have kowtowed to the monied interests who have purchased all the levers of government to use as they see fit. These are dark days for America. The election cycles of 2018 and 2020 will decide whether our country thrives asa democracy or suffers as a fascist regime. Vote as if our country depended on it. Now, more than ever, it truly does.
just think about what they did by stealing the sc seat from bo
the dems would never do that - they'd never have the backbone
watch them cave and accept some young hard right replacement for ak
they should hold that nomination hostage until after the election - but they won't
As of yesterday all three branches of government are now in the grips of American fascism. If we want justice it no longer involves the courts. It happens in the street.
1
If a police officer doesn’t belong to a union, is he/she a scab? Can it be legally known who does and doesn’t pay dues? Will a non-union officer be able to get backup, or will they be Serpico-ed?
While Liberals and Progressives of all stripes keep getting apoplectic about Melania's fashion choices and Donald Trump's tweets and hardcore supporters centred speeches (each more outrageous than the last, ) Conservatives, Populists (read into and that what you will) and their backers and allies keep getting victories such as this, the second one in two days, if Trump's travel ban being sanctified by the
Supreme Court, can be called that.
The announcement that Judge Kennedy is retiring from the bench, means that the Trump administration, can now tilt the Supreme Court decisively to the right. Something that will profoundly impact and shape American society for decades to come.
But while Republicans make and implement policy, and keep winning court battles...thank the heavens, Democrats can take pride in fighting "white privilege" , and keep "winning" with #OscarsSooWhite and #MeToo / #Time'sUp and Bernie Bros...
All of these losses will most acutely be felt by the marginalized, the poor, the refugees / immigrants, visible ethnic and religious minorities the very people Democrats supposedly represent... but don't worry folks because the Dems are on the case...and they fired Roseanne...
I am really afraid for the future...
1
...and in other news, Labor Day has been cancelled.
1
Yet another abhorrent anti-worker ruling by the five Republican appointed (one stolen) corporate-owned hacks disgracing the Supreme Court.
At some point, (in the not too distant future) secession from this corrupt Republican mess that used to be America becomes the last viable option for anyone with functioning brain cells.
1
Brothers and Sisters, back in the day we had to fight tooth and nail every inch of the way. All Y'all knows it. And it was the women showed us howe to be stickin' to he Union.
Ain't nothin' but white shirt, backboneless wouldn't vote to strike 'cause they have no principals. I've been poor without two dimes to rub together, lookin' in the couch cushions for a quarter to buy a pack of cigarettes.
Loaf of sliced Venetian bread cost $.15 and that was fresh. But we didn't have work nor a Union. Nor a minimum wage, nor much but bread and butter for the lunch bucket. Ain't goin' back that lonesome road no more.
3
America is dying. Read Madeline Albright's "Fascism: a Warning" today. There is only one thing left to say: We are fools.
The majority of Americans do not approve of this administration or the unfit person who formed it.
Mr. Gorsuch, with your abominable assault on our democracy and the people of this country, you have made it perfectly clear that your despise both. If you are not now, you will become one of the most hated men in America, right behind trump, and mcconnell and lyin' ryan. When everyday people realize what the three of you have done to them they will know who is to blame.
Karma is a - well you know.
2
How divisive are those ruling 5/4 ...Americans, you seem to be at a crossroad; vote in November and you will see what kind of country (ies)you really is/are!
1
Al Shanker is rolling over in his grave.
"Mark Janus, who sued his Illinois public sector union, outside the Supreme Court in February. He said he should not be forced to pay fees to support positions he did not agree with."
When Mark Janus gets crosswise to some bureaucrat in the government organization he worls for, since he is not a memnber, the union would be wise to tell him to "Suck it up snowflake, you are on your own. Enjoy hiring your own lawyer."
6
It's amazing how many dissents are being read from the bench these days, I gather it's far more than in the past. So we see that the Supreme Court has become the same polarized arena as every other official institution. Donald Trump's reaction to this decision is, in so many words, "Good on ya, Supreme Court -- THIS will screw those Democrats!" At least HE is willing to say openly what the majority is doing, cloaked in pious devotion to the First Amendment. Dissents from the bench will change nothing, but can have an effect on the public and historic mind. Just think of Justice Harlan's dissent from Plessy vs. Ferguson, which has lived long after the court's racist majority opinion has been relegated to the midden of obsolete prejudices.
1
Every single person willing to receive all the good a collective bargaining agreement provides without paying for it falls in the same category as a Scab.
“After God had finished the rattlesnake, the toad, the vampire, He had some awful substance left with which He made a scab.
A scab is a two-legged animal with a cork-screw soul, a water-logged brain, a combination backbone of jelly and glue. Where others have hearts, he carries a tumor of rotten principles. - Jack London
2
This blow to unions could be a blessing in disguise!
---------------------------------------------------------------
It might get them fired up and angry enough to vote more.
Perhaps that anger will propel Democrats to take the House!
Democrats must wake up, if they want to win in November.
This court decision may help to energize the Dem. Resistance!
1
Good for them! Why should a civil servant (what is a civil servant anyway?) be required to pay union dues if he is not a member? The unions never should have acquired that power to begin with. If you claim and object to the notion that the Russians have been interfering with our election process why would you allow a union to take over our government civil service jobs?
The union members in my government job with the Defense Department just spent their day wandering around like political commissars agitating for the union cause. They didn't do any actual work. They worked for the union, and said so when questioned about what they were doing. "Why aren't you compiling that map of Singapore harbor that you were assigned last month?"--"I'm doing union work."
But they all expected their annual step raise, whether they did any real government work, or not.
The union tried to suggest, through their floating commissars, that they could intervene if an employee had problems with his security clearance, even if they had no authority. If the Merit System Protection Board (MSPB) doesn't have any authority or power to interfere with security clearance actions then the union certainly doesn't. But they can obstruct government operations to blackmail management and force them to retain an employee with a compromised security clearance.
Unions are a threat to national security.
2
This is what happens when an organization is captured completely by one party. They overplay their cards, refuse to even give appearances of political fairness, and a predictable result follows. Academia may want to learn this lesson before there is a taxpayer revolt against public funding for a single point of view.
From a taxpayer perspective it was always annoying that I was subsidizing overt political lobbying for one party, although that isn't what was specifically at issue here and the last election saw a blue collar shift.
Unions can easily fix this by stopping all political lobbying and sticking to contracts. It was never believable that highly corrupt unions were putting up an effective firewall between political and contract fees.
2
I guess this is a "big win" for all those public sector employees who strongly object to getting higher wages and better, safer working conditions. Finally, their voice will be heard!
7
Finally, the workers' monopoly protection policies of the past is being broken up. It's interesting to read that so many people would oppose corporations using their monopolistic powers yet it's acceptable for monopolistic unions to exercise their power that brought down companies and municipalities to its knees (look what happened to general motors, Illinois' public pension, the MTA)
While I fully support unions that are absolutely necessary to maintain a vibrant economy where salaries and benefits do not stagnate, this decision and the one on the travel ban are not as straightforward as the liberals portray them as. It is very hard to justify forcing people to pay dues to a union that they have not chosen to join, no matter what this union is doing for them. The argument about "freeloaders" does not fly: there are many other organizations that do work to benefit me and we cannot possibly have a system where I have pay for all of them. On the travel ban, the liberals argued that the court had to rule against it because of what the president said about banning muslims. I disagree with the president and his policies very strongly but we cannot possibly have a system where constitutional powers are defined based on what one president says.
1
Good.
Labor unions can be very good things, but not in the public sector. It's no exaggeration that they extract sweetheart collective bargaining agreements from politicians whom they help put in office and whom don't have to pay the salaries and benefits that the public ends up paying. Teacher unions are particularly bad. Thanks to unions, it's practically impossible to fire bad teachers who do real harm to real people by failing to educate kids. Of course, not all teachers are bad, but it doesn't take many rotten apples, as they say. The public that pays the bills shouldn't be putting up with contracts that bestow tenure on K-12 teachers, as if they are some sort of gifted intellectuals on par with college professors.
Stop with the hyperbole that this is somehow a blow to workers everywhere. No. It is an abomination that unions, by and large, represent only public sector workers these days. Everyone else, the ones who pay the bills via taxes, doesn't have union protection, doesn't have gold-plated health insurance, doesn't have pensions that allow them to retire, or take new jobs to double their income, after 20 years of work. If everyone had these sorts of benefits and protections, it would be another matter. But we don't, and people who foot the bills for public sector unions, meaning the public, are sick of it.
In short, the pendulum swung too far, and when that happens, someone gets clocked. Welcome to the real world, unions.
2
Aside from the political and constitutional implications of this ruling, you're naive to think that protection or advancement of your interests as a worker are better left in your individual hands than in the union's hands. At the least, the Illinois law needs to be reformed in a way that eliminates the "free-ride" problem. Not paying dues ought to force you to both negotiate on your own (wages, health care, leave, retirement, etc.), and be relieved of benefits accrued by collective bargaining. Philosophically, this is yet another example of exalting individual rights while weakening workers' bargaining strength, and further eroding America's social contract where we sacrifice some individual freedom for state-public safeguards.
1
The hollowing out of the middle class continues thanks to the Koch Brothers, GOP and their beloved legacy of Ronald Reagan who started the war on collective bargaining in the 80's. Now chart the graph of US standard of living and the increase of the wealth gap since then and connect the dots. We're losing. Not wining.
4
What if unions only bargained on behalf of their members and employees that choose not be members can negotiate their own salary and benefits. Perhaps workplaces will have more than one union competing to gain membership and improve the lives of workers. "Join our union and gain an extra week vacation ..."
Can public sector unions now say that people who don't pay in to support collective bargaining are not eligible for the results and must negotiate their own contracts? People who'd rather stop paying union dues would suddenly find their working conditions and pay levels reduced to shareholder-friendly levels. I think they would quickly opt to return to organized representation.
Utterly predictable. Just wait until the Supreme Court declares the Securities Acts of 1933 and 1934 unconstitutional because they interfere with the right of securities fraudsters to say what they want about their stock and bond scams. Laugh, but when Lee Bollinger was my professor at U of M Law School we discussed, jokingly at the time, how extreme First Amendment analysis could be applied to negate regulation of many transactions in society. We see a 4.5 member (Kennedy is half-gone) majority of the Court now beginning to adopt this extreme analysis- at least selectively. It probably won't apply to states who want to force doctors to say certain things about abortion.
1
In my opinion, the writing was on the wall a long time ago. A lot of the rank and file of the union I used to be part of (1199) are disgusted with their leadership. My union steward was unresponsive and didn't really care about her fellow employee's concerns. She was barely competent on the job, played favorites, and would only bother if it was one of the people who curried favors with her.
Trump provided the entertainment while the Republicans have been quietly taking over the judicial system in this country. They kept their eye on the prize, and bided their time by obstructing Congress for 8 years.
The less representation people have at all levels, the better for authoritarianism to take over. The 2018 midterms will tell us if we are a done deal for many, many years to come. Right now the Republicans are in charge of all three branches of government.
"The court overruled its 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which had made a distinction between two kinds of compelled payments. Forcing nonmembers to pay for a union’s political activities violated the First Amendment, the court said. But it was constitutional, the court added, to require nonmembers to help pay for the union’s collective bargaining efforts to prevent freeloading and ensure “labor peace.”
"That distinction is untenable and unworkable, the majority said."
Wow, even I know that.
It's stunning that a SC decision/law that has been in effect for 41 years is suddenly unconstitutional. Something-for-nothing is entrenched in our national culture.
The Republicans just bought a bunch of votes.
1
This was to be expected. The Roberts’ court has been very predictable. It is unfortunate that it is possible to game this court. They are consistently pro business/Republican. At times I wonder why they even go through the charade of having a hearing, arguments etc. It appears that the moment they agree to take a case, it is pretty much known how they are going to decide and only need time to write their decisions. For that matter the “liberal” side of the ledger is also highly predictable. No wonder the unfavorable rating of the SCOTUS is on a par with the other branches of the government.
In an ideal society, the justice system should be above narrow political ideologies. The current court is far from that ideal. And with the lower courts being populated with ideologues, thanks to Mitch McConnell, I am afraid this is what we are going to be dealing with for years to come.
2
If unions were started to protect workers from robber barron capitalists, why do people who work for our government need them? Why should we trust a government that has to be policed by unions?
1
Gorsuch with another 5-4 victory for Republicans and the new Robber Barons!
Organized labor has been the enemy of the Top 0.1% since the Industrial Revolution. It's no coincidence that the decline of labor unions in the US and the decline of the working and middle classes happened at the same time -- from the 70s through today. That's nearly 50 years of workers bleeding out to the Waltons, Kochs, et al. Scott Walker and his shenanigans in Wisconsin in 2011 were a preview of what was to come.
And yet, all of this boils to voter turnout. Political Darwinism says you get the government you don't vote for, regardless of apathy or voter suppression or super-delegates. Election results are all that matter. The only people who will hurt the most in today's GOP-dominated Federal and majority state governments are those outside the Top 10%. I am not optimistic for the 2018 midterms or 2020 general.
2
For decades I have told folks that the most powerful role of the presidency is the right to nominate Supreme Court justices. I've never in my life been sadder to say "I told you so!"
1
Over the past 35 or so years, I think it's become clear that the rights of workers are fluctuating and often precarious. Commenters here who think employees' rights and dignity can be sustained while unions die, will be very disappointed in a few years.
1
This decision is so obviously correct that I find it worrisome that four members of the Supreme Court would oppose it.
1
How's that when any employee can get that part of their dues back? Simply being a union buster doesn't relieve you of logic, or does it?
2
Progress is slow, but so sweet. With this decision, we are slightly less under the thumb of those who, with our money, impose their view of what is good for us (in this case, what is good for them).
1
No one will deny the value unions have had in moving America forward. However, most of what they fought for has long been usurped by statute and the markets. Today's public employee unions have grown well past their usefulness. Since there is no ceiling to their demands - no bottom line to adhere to, they have indebted everyone to pay for their greed - large pensions, high salaries unheard of private market benefits and schedules. And since they also fund the elections of the very people who are supposed to over see them, its accelerated. So this is a great move to help break their stronghold on municipalities across this country many of whom are teetering on the edge of insolvency due to the insane and selfish demands of the public unions. In the end, freedom of choice should be allowed regardless and if someone does not want to be a part, they should not lose their job in the process.
2
Personally, I never understood the justification of public employee unions. Public employees are agents of the government and, as such, how can they negotiate with themselves?
2
Anthony Kennedy to retire. If the Democrats do not win majority this year, the right-wing Supreme Court will rule this country for at least a generation to come.
And hopefully our President will have the opportunity to nominate at least 2 more Supreme Court Justices before he's out in 2024.
Let's see what happens if governments take advantage of this by adapting different, lower pay scales for non-union workers who opted out of unionized collective bargaining.
A tremendous victory for worker's rights, free speech and the rule of law. Bravo SCOTUS.
2
I bet Mr. Janus will keep the economic gains and workplace protections the union he despises got him though and which he never would have had otherwise. Bloody freeloader.
3
The apply-named Mr. Janus, after the two-faced Roman deity.
1
If unions are now required by law to represent everyone in the bargaining unit whether or not they are dues-paying union members, unions should countersue the government for violating its own First Amendment rights: being required to represent non-dues-paying members who have not expressed interest in being represented by the union by not becoming members themselves (aka "we represent union members, not freeloaders"). The free speech rights of the union come from union-members, not the freeloaders.
The result will be members receiving the benefits of collective bargaining while the free-loaders will have to negotiate on their own. I'm sure that some employers will take advantage of non-members group size of one by cutting benefits, pay, etc. in comparison to union-negotiated contracts. This is a perfect example to demonstrate union benefits.
2
Unions are well worth the dues. The last contract that the California Nurses Association bargained with Kaiser not only protected “equal pay for equal work” but several issues related to safe patient care. After receiving a substantial tax break from the recent tax laws, they proposed freezing and reducing wages for nurses in different areas of Northern California. We stood together to ensure that safe staffing for patient care and our salaries were not compromised.
1
I sincerely hope that by the time the Republicans are defeated at the next election for POTUS in 2020, that there will still be a country called the USA that all Americans can be proud to say "I am an American, and proud of be so"!
1
Unions in the private sector and public sector are in vastly different circumstances. Private sector unions battle with management and shareholders. If they push too far, the whole company will fail and go under, so there is alignment of interests in ensuring the continued survival of the enterprise. In any case, the taxpayer is not on the hook for a private company failing (with some notable exceptions).
Public sector unions are different. Their "shareholders" are taxpayers, who have little to no influence on negotiations. "Management" is comprised of elected and non-elected officials. These officials should technically work for the taxpayers, but they tend to have different incentives and disincentives, so they will often just get in bed with unions, at the expense of the taxpayer. As such, public sector unions should never have been allowed to exist, and should all be abolished.
24
I disagree on one point. Businesses, especially banisters, have become adept at foisting the costs of their greed off on the public.
1
My grandfather who worked as an accountant for various coal mines in southwest Virginia and southeast Kentucky from the late 1920s to the 1950s, said unions would be the death of American industry and business. Looks like the SC agrees.
6
Instead, the private sector unions died and America business grew. The parasite attached itself to government which is anemic from the blood drain.
3
I'll bet grampa didn't end up dying of black lung.
How many guys who actually did the mining were saved after the unions forced the coal companies to protect their health?
1
Interesting. Your grandfather stopped working just when the unions were their strongest and the US embarked on its greatest economic expansion in history with a huge increase in a solid middle class. The reversal of this trend (with the subsequent growing economic inequality we now have) began with the union busting of Reagan and has continued with the right-to-work laws and now this. Seems you grandfather had things a bit up-side-down.
1
Conversely, Mark Janus should not be allowed to reap the benefits of any negotiated settlement between the government or companies, and the union that negotiated the deal.
13
Ms Liptak closes with: "But unions now represent only 6.5 percent of private sector employees, down from the upper teens in the early 1980s, and most of the labor movement's strength these days is in the public sector."
Economic perspective to this discussion can be gained via:
1) Per the DOL May 2018 jobs report: Overall private sector real wages have been essentially flat over the last 12 months. The average private sector nominal wage was $26.21 in May 2017 versus $26.92 in May, 2018; with an inflation rate during this 12 month period of about 2.8%. Thus, a nominal wage that stayed even with inflation would yield:
[(1.028 x $26.21) = $26.94]. So, real wages in the private sector are flat, or have not grown over the last 12 month period; which seems to support Ms Liptak's implication of a lack of union power in the private sector.
2) For the overall economy, in May, 2018 there were about 126.7 million private sector jobs and 22.6 million public sector jobs per the DOL report, or 149.3 million total jobs. With this 22.6 million public sector total composed of about 2.8 million federal jobs, 5.1 million state jobs and 14.7 million local jobs. Thus, government jobs at 22.6 million represented about 15.1% of the total 149.3 million jobs in the US economy in May 2018, per the DOL establishment survey.
3) And, this union membership of 6.5% of private sector workers represents about 8.2 million individuals
(0.065 x 126.7 m = 8.2 m).
6/27 W 1:50p Greenville NC
While I am sympathetic to the unions, this ruling is the only correct answer.
Sotomayor wrote: "“it prevents the American people, acting through their state and local officials, from making important choices about workplace governance."
This is patently false. If a state or local government was able to "tax" its employees to pay for unions, the state or local government could also pass laws to reduce the pay of the workers by the amount of the union dues and instead fund public unions (which could be state or nonprofit bodies) to represent the workers in bargaining negotiations.
The reality is that the unions probably know that is politically unacceptable - it is their duty to convince either the electorate or the workers that they are worth the dues (and I believe they are).
There are simple fiscal solutions to this problem. But it is highly inappropriate to use the state power to tax and coerce in order to force workers to pay another private entity (unions are private, not public, bodies).
7
The war against labor & the working class goes well beyond the campaign by wealthy & politically powerful individuals and organizations to end unions and all forms of collective bargaining. In the early 20th century it was clubs, guns, private security and a compromised political system. Now its lawyers, think tanks, propaganda outlets pretending to do journalism and a biased corporate judiciary that toddies for the plutocracy. Not only do they want to end unions and collective bargaining they want non-compete clauses for wide classes of workers and a return to unregulated and dangerous work conditions and poverty level wages. The people behind this and the justices who created the circumstances to make this ruling possible see labor as a commodity no different then any other cost of doing business, like widgets to be used and discarded an needed. Apparently we need to learn again why our strength lies in numbers and that individually we are just prey for the wealthy predators behind this ruling and their political allies in government and the courts. It will be a hard road against a ruthless opponent who will give no quarter and intends nothing less then a Trump like domination of the economy and the workers who labor within it.
6
Perhaps, a new class of non union employees will be established, wherein this group can negotiate on their own.
Thereby not getting the benefit of collective bargaining by a large group. You choose not to pay for union benefits, negotiate on your own, might be the unions new position for non union workers.
2
I worked for a local government in Florida, a right to work state, in a job that was covered by a union. I could opt in and pay dues or opt out and not pay anything. I was not able to negotiate for myself. Pay scales and benefits were set by collective bargaining.
3
So did you opt in and pay your fair share, or opt out and become a freeloader?
I believe that is how it works for federal unions too. However, beyond contract negotiations, unions also represent employees in disputes, etc. That type of assistance may be limited in the future to non-fee-paying workers.
So now all we have to do is raise the minimum wage to $25/hr indexed to the CPI, implement Medicare-for-all and virtually free college tuition... no need for Unions.
7
Mark lederer, you really should move permanently to Venezuela. Seems you'd enjoy the way of living there.
Unions are an integral part of civil society and play an crucial role in representing the interests of working people and their families. Aside from negotiating wages and working conditions, unions play an important role in organizing the working class to enable them to more effectively defend their economic and social interests. The courts have worked hard for the last 40 to disable the working class, and each time they raise their voices, working people are accused of waging class war.
1
So does this mean that union contracts and benefits now only apply to union members? And if you are not in the union it is up to you to negotiate your pay and benefits with your employer?
It should. That way there will be no "free riders". It will also be a tremendous opportunity for state and local governments to cut costs.
13
I agree. But mostly people will not opt to become members and pay fees. They would settle with less power at negotiating table.
Public employees do not have contracts. They get paid via laws, budgets and ordinances, all approved by legislative arm and signed by the executive. No city council or legislature would pass such a law. In TX, unions are essentially lobbyists. The governments listen and then decided on budgets enforced by law. Setting up a class within a city Workforce, governed by separate ordinances, is ridiculous. Rant if you want. Just understand the rant is asinine.
1
I agree with this. Why should a non-member be forced to pay to the union? They should be given a choice to pay by becoming a member. Those who support this practice are simply biased as one political party will get affected. These very people will agree with the court if GOP was being benefited by contributions from unions.
5
Then, in fairness, shouldn't the non-union worker not be covered by the collective bargaining agreement negotiated on behalf of union members? The Court had it right prior to this ruling by addressing practically this incongruity. All the new ruling does is create a new inequity. The insidious part is that it hides behind the Constitution to do so.
1
So the union spends their time, effort and money negotiating with management for the benefit of *all* workers, but lots of them just get a free ride and get those benefits without contributing anything?
2
This is a political strategy to strengthen Republican candidates and weaken the Unions who typically oppose them.
It is a victory for the bosses across this country and a loss for every worker. Here is an example: My wife and I work in the same field for different employers. I have a Union and she does not. My salary is $145,000/yr and her salary is $30,000/yr. We basically do the same thing from 9-5; but I have good benefits and a much higher salary thanks to my UNION.
Of course, the 1% wants to pocket the difference...
24
Even the most pro-union advocates would not claim that unions are responsible for a 383% pay increase.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/04/art2full.pdf
There are many reasons not to be a fan of SCOTUS these days but this might turn differently than one might imagine. Based on this ruling, I see no reason why members of a union can not secure more benefits and pay for themselves than their non-union peers. If companies only negotiated and agreed to terms of work for union members exclusively, then non-union employees would have more personal incentive to join the union.
That being said, Alito's statement that, “We conclude that this arrangement violates the free speech rights of nonmembers by compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern,” is very chilling. One wonders where this slippery slope of supposed free speech takes us. We are not far from being able to opt out of public school taxes; watch for it.
11
It won't benefit unions, look at history--what happens when you have union and a non-union workers is that employers give non-union workers better pay and benefits to lure them away from the union. the union fades away and loses influence. Than BAM, the employer comes down on the workers with big pay and benefit cuts. That classic bait and switch is why you have union shops in the first place--you can't have different contracts for the same workers in the same workplace. And by the way--legally unions are required to represent all workers in the work unit, whether or not they are union members.
1
The right to tax is well established. However, union dues were a PRIVATE entity taxing workers. That should trouble anyone.
And the slippery slope runs both ways.
How would we feel if the Trump Admin decided that all petroleum industry workers have to pay dues to a nonprofit that advocates for increased used of petroleum products and to minimize regulations? All the workers would benefit, and their speech is no more restricted than paying union dues.
Similar issue with the abortion ruling the other day - now pro-abortion centers can also rely on the ruling to resist conservative states from requiring them to provide mandatory information to patients, just as in California.
I was a member of a public employee union for 30+ years. While generally in support of unions, my political views were much the opposite of my unions. I was given the run around when I tried to get a refund of the part of my dues that went to "political advocacy. Perhaps this decision will motivate public employee unions to pay more attention to their members. Otherwise their ranks will drop significantly.
15
Bet you liked and kept the pay raises and improved working conditions they got for you over those 30 years, though.
1
City elected officials agreeing to luxurious city employee pay packages in exchange for union support at election time and all those boots on the ground is a recipe for municipal bankruptcy. Many cities have experienced this directly and it is not far off for our city. ANYTHING that decreases public sector union power is something I support because the voting public. and their elected officials, won't do anything about it. Hopefully this will have an impact.
I fully support private sector unions. Public sector unions are a route to municipal bankruptcy.
19
Fully agree, especially in Calif where public sector unions negotiate for 7%-8% ROIs on their pensions which, if not met by market forces, are met by the state, that is, our taxes. Ask Jerry Brown about this.
2
The case turns on (not) obliging someone to financially support SPEECH s/he disagrees with. If a state agency produces a TV commercial and buys time to run it that, for example, supports betting on sports as a way to raise revenue for the state, or, more anodyne, simply spends money on trumpeting its development projects or its subsidizing industries to attract business, or to attract military enlistments, am I at liberty to deduct from my taxes whatever percent of them goes to that speech?
7
Simply put, no. But that fact proves the idiocy and mendacity of the Court's majority in this case.
1
I believe the law & legal precedent is clear that everyone must pay taxes, regardless of whether or not the revenue supports things they don't like.
A large part of dues goes toward the retention of legal counsel. While national organizations do provide assistance, locals still have to pay court costs, filing costs, some attorney’s fees, etc. All this while going up against those who have endless blank checks and bottomless pockets and are willing to spare no expense to get what they want. It is a true war of attrition.
Unions represent all workers at the bargaining table, whether or not those workers in turn support the unions.
Although this ruling concerns government unions, make no mistake: This is how disvalued workers are becoming in this country. We’ve known that for a long time, but to see it affirmed by the Supreme Court is truly frightening and disheartening.
14
For many people, choosing to pay union dues is a non-starter given their other, more pressing financial needs. Is it in their interest to pay union dues? Sure. But expecting them to volitionally pay is naive. Mandatory contributions are paternalistic, yes, but it relieves individuals of the responsibility of choosing to pay union dues or choosing to spend their money in more necessary/gratifying ways.
5
and that's why the law requires people to buy life insurance, healthy food, and save for their kids' college education.
Oh, no, wait - it doesn't.
This ruling is hypocritical horse you know what.
Suppose I own stock in XYZ Corp.
XYZ donates in support of candidate W.
I do not approve of W's positions on issues.
But as a stockholder [and therefore a part owner of the corporation] I am forced to pay to support W.
If the execs of XYZ want to donate their own money in support of W that is their business but corporate money should not be used in support of W.
If individuals want to spend their own money in support of W that is their business.
Saying a stockholder who doesn't agree with the corporation's support of W can sell his stock is not valid.
The conservative justices should be honest.
If they believe municipal employees are overpaid and to limit salaries they want to bust the public service unions they should say this.
The 1st amendment has nothing to do with this case.
17
"Saying a stockholder who doesn't agree with the corporation's support of W can sell his stock is not valid."
Really? Why is it not valid? Divestment is a common and often-used tool to indicate your disagreement with a company's policies. Divestment from fossil fuel stocks and gun manufacturer stocks is very common these days.
Maybe we need some shareholder suits.
Your example sounds a lot like Citizens United, another "1st Amendment" disaster.
2
I could not be happier with this decision and anybody who owns property in the Northeast should view it similarly. Why? Public employee unions make large political contributions to Democratic politicians who, in turn, give the unions sweetheart contracts with lavish retirement benefits which drive up property taxes and which also limit discretionary spending for infrastructure and other needs. And I hope that same day these unions are not allowed to make any contributions to political parties.
27
If the same rules apply to corporations and every other organization, fine. But unions are being targeted.
In most of the South and West public unions do not require free loaders to pay, nor do they have much power.
Mussolini never died.
1
Yeah, right. All those elementary school teachers living lavishly. Let me guess: you’re against firefighters unionioning for fair pay and benefits, but you’re okay with the Koch brothers funneling billions to finance stooges who disenfranchise the working class.
4
Paying taxes means that we're supporting things we disagree with. Can I withhold my taxes on the grounds that my village or the state I live in, or the country I live in are paying people who advocate policies I disagree with? No. So why should someone who works in a union shop, member or not, and is reaping the benefits of collective bargaining, be allowed a free ride because he doesn't like their political positions?
This decision by the Court is going to hurt all workers. We're on our own in so many things and, when we have to fight we're at a complete disadvantage if our employer has the money and the lawyers to continue appealing a decision it doesn't like.
We're being forced into arbitration which favors the company. which means we're not allowed to sue collectively for wrongs done to a massive number of people. And now, because the likes of the Koch Brothers and other rich influencers, we're losing any control we had over our work lives. Where does it end? Do we need another Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire for people to understand why unions are needed?
I came of age when Reagan was elected. All my generation has experienced is the erosion of our rights at home, at work, in public. This decision is another win for the rich corporations and, to use the old fashioned word, scabs who benefit from the hard work of others. Now unions cannot do what every other industry does, advocate for what they believe in. What a sham our country has become.
35
Silly comparison. The government compels that we pay taxes to the government. Unions are not the government.
You pay taxes to the government. You pay dues to a union. Union is a private enterprise. Obligations to pay to government are different. The SC simply made that difference clear.
Disappointed NYT doesn't print the name of the justice who authored the latest SCOTUS corporate handout (Alito). Ironic omission since the core purpose of the First Amendment, cited to justify today's 5-4 ruling, is ensuring a free press that holds government officials accountable.
SCOTUS gets away with such slanted rulings because the justices are the least accountable, but most powerful, public officials in the United States. They have life tenure. They refuse to permit video of oral arguments because the justices would lose their precious anonymity. If they went out of eat, heaven forbid, someone might recognize them.
So at least print the author's name. For accountability, it's all we have.
4
Getting more of that special interest money out of politics.
MAGA.
4
Special interest money out of politics? Dude, have you been made aware of Citizens United? Laughably ridiculous comment
1
For all thise who think trouble with Trump will only last so long as he's in office, SJC appointments last a lifetime.
13
What a day for President Trump and the Republicans, first a real thorn in their side and someone who was all posed to be the next speaker gets knocked out, and like in other cases it a democrat that does the dirty work for him. And now this union decision , which will result in less money to support democratic politicians and democratic issues. Winning!
1
So how are we not to recognize that both Roberts and Alito perjured themselves when, during their confirmation hearings, they stated unequivocally that they believed in the principal of stare decisis. It has become clear in case after case that they don't and never have (Shocking!) and lied to the Senate to be confirmed.
You want to talk about impeachment----these two extremist perjurers should be at the top of the list.
17
More often than not, SCOTUS justices have reneged on their positions before joining the court. It drives GOP presidents crazy, because it happens more often to their picks.
So when a Union starts bargaining with an employer, the outcome should be that those who do not pay their dues are not part of the negociations. Let the moochers do their own bargaining.
America is becoming more and more like a fascist state.
17
We know. The problem is without an actual "revolution", 70% of my country is content to sit in apathy ehile we march toward oligarchy, fascism, and the obliteration of our democracy. Bit by bit Russian based laws are being rammed through, with zero accountability.. Trump is drunk with power, his Narcissistic personality disorder tells him he's the best person EVER. That isn't remotely true. He's a failed con artist who got a shot at this circus because Russia wanted to dilute American power.
1
The right to your own speech and not that of your union is a fundamental First Amendment right. Not even unions can take that away from you. Good job SCOTUS.
10
If you are a grandma getting Social Secutprity and/or Medicare, you have a teeny blind spot.
Peace, prosperity, majority white agenda, promises kept however un likeable. OK dems, what you propose to battle this?
1
Hey, you, American citizen. How do you propose to battle this?
1
Guess those "activist" judges are A-OK when they're on your side of the aisle.
18
First the foolish tariffs and now this. As if working Americans needed a reminder that many voted against their own interests. If you work for a living the GOP is not your friend.
9
Finally!!! Great news!!
10
It's revolting how one stolen seat on SCOTUS has resulted in continual 5-4 regressive, neanderthal decisions. Scalia is jumping up and down for joy in his grave, and Clarence Thomas (Mr. Pubic Hair on Coke Can) is so happy he may actually say something at some point.
So now all thee branches of government are extreme right-wing. No more checks and balances.
12
MSM is left-wing. So just read more news and listen to TV to be in that "happy" universe.
1
Capital just can't get enough. Never can. In principle.
It would harvest your organs if it could generate exchange value and thus surplus value out of it. Workers are weak as individuals, collective bargaining gives them a shot. The Republican party is the party of big business.
"What is the price workers must pay?", Ted Kennedy asks in his oratory on the minimum wage asks a fundamental question about the Republican party and Gorsuch it their boy...
check out Ted's speech, 7 minutes, it lets you know how they have alwasy worked:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SicFn8rqPPE
9
The next step for the far right is to outlaw them altogether
3
Forward to the 1800s!
Fingers crossed...
Just curious, did Affirmative Action help minorities? Please show evidence.
What makes you think unions helped workers?- other than what you are told by the media and the movies, repeatedly for 75 years.
One big problem with unions is your skill level is capped, you do not get paid more than your union buddy if you work better than him or her.
Both are used to plant hard left politicians into the bureaucracy, prove me wrong please.
10
As evidence I would point to the string correlation between decline of unions and decline of average wages and resulting gutting of the middle class.
3
Unions protect workers. The California Nurses Association recently prevented Kaiser from freezing and reducing wages for nurses in some locations in Northern California— we stood together. “Equal pay for equal work”.
1
This is what happens when you privilege BELIEF over material reality. I blame religion.
5
Little can be learned from this week other than how to spell the words "plutocracy" and "fascism".
A country ruled by one class (the rich) and one race (whites) and one gender (men) all rolled into an arrogant smirking example...trump. It will be back to the 1950's when they take away women's reproductive rights.
Are you ready for that Jill Stein voters? Bitter is this old white man.
9
The right-winger court majority is nothing but a political arm of extremists and pushes their agenda. These decisions have NOTHING to do with law or interpretation of the Constitution or Amendments. One wonders how much they get paid under the table to spew these moronic decisions.
6
This is simply the Koch brothers agenda being implemented, a hateful set of anti-union beliefs they've held for years. The Kochs reserve a special hatred for public employee unions (PEUs) and intend to destroy collective bargaining of PEUs if they can.
The Kochs are billionaires many times over and operate a massive network of political organizations funded by themselves and other billionaires. They inherited their wealth from industrialist Fred Koch, co-founder of the John Birch Society, who saw a commie behind every rock and were determined to destroy them.
No one elected the Kochs to anything, but the Kochs elected a lot of tools to Congress who now do their bidding, unfettered.
17
Donald Trump tweeted that the Supreme Court decision will be a big loss for the coffers of Democrats. He forgot to mention that he will be further enriched
by paying piddling to his hotel workers,
shameless.
10
I have to disagree. He already pays piddling to his hotel employees.
That's false. You're conflating public and private sector unions. Today's ruling applies only to public sector unions.
2
What does decision regarding public employees have anything to do with hotel workers? Are they public employees?
2
To be clear: the "political speech" this ruling calls unconstitutional is not speech in support of labor-friendly policies or candidates. The law already says fair-share fees can't be spent on that.
It's speech at the bargaining table in favor of decent wages and working conditions that the union thinks is fair. Full stop. Janus was offended because he had to pay a few dollars a month to have his union argue for decent wages and working conditions.
It's, shall we say, counterintuitive to think a worker would object to such speech. But it's obvious that right-wing billionaires, such as the ones who paid for Janus's lawyers, would have an interest in weakening such speech. He has become a historically significant useful idiot.
Soon workers everywhere will be constitutionally protected from having unions say they shouldn't be ripped off, exploited, and mistreated at work. Freedom!
11
The Republicans stole a Supreme Court nomination from Obana and this is the result. Dump Trump -- and Gorsuch.
14
Yet another blow to Democracy. This is happening now! I feel like half of America is stumbling around in a fog and can't see that their world is crumbling underfoot.
This -- all of this that is happening -- is a hostile takeover of America by psychopaths (Republicans, Russia, corporate Cs, mobster grifters and their grafters).
I'm not talking about serial-killer-psychopaths in movies (they don't exist like that), but the kind of everyday psychopaths that hide among us, the high-functioning ones who become CEOs, politicians, bankers, cult leaders, dictators -- the kind whose brains are so disordered and dysfunctional that they have a twisted worldview, a grandiose opinion of their self worth, and are literally unable to experience or understand guilt, empathy, compassion, and sympathy -- the kind who are driven by impulse and compulsion to attain control, power and money at all costs.
This is this is your majority SCOTUS, this is your president, his family and inner circle, this is your republican party and the wealthy elite, like Koch brothers and Murdochs. Psychopaths. All of whom are supported by a gang of grafters and ignorant throng of conservative minority citizens.
I focus on the pathology /psychology of what is driving this hostile takeover because you can't fight the beast unless or until you know what you're dealing with. People seem baffled by these people's (SCOTUS, Trump et al) behaviors. It's not so baffling when you understand "what" they are.
3
A huge blow to public labor by anti laborer conservatives. Get out and vote...
17
So three decisions that helped destroy democracy.
1) Make Trump's bigotry institutional and give him total power with no limits including constitutional.
2) Put a gag order on providing women with information about abortions and reproductive health.
3) Weaken labor unions and suppress the rights of workers in this country.
How does this differ from a slow rolling right wing fascist coup? In Germany, the labor unions were suppressed. The civil service was purged of those who didn't strongly support Hitler. In Nazi Germany, women were forced to bear children. One religion was prioritized and twisted to support Nazis, becoming a state religion.
Discrimination against others on the basis of their religion, their ethnic background, their disabilities, and other aspects meant that Nazis took children from their families, put people into detention camps, and later destroyed them. We are on one point of that arc.
The Roberts Court has systematically suppressed votes from the beginning, and it turned over elections to those with the most money.
And some are now decrying that people are not "civil" enough.
You are not civil when thousands of children have been taken from their families.
You are not civil when the Hastert Rule (named for a GOP pedophile) combined with the McConnell Obstruction denies some 60% of the country their right to constitutional representation.
You are not civil when the SC becomes the Trump Court of bigotry and tyranny.
31
if the public unions were requiring members to pay into a slush fund for the Republicans, the NYT's and their readers would be outraged. and you know it
15
That was not the issue here: agency fees for collective bargaining is not same as already optional political activity fees.
5
Just a further step in the realm of fascism.
Soon it would be mandatory to join the Republican party as the only lawful political organization. Democracy is gone, Mussolini is reborn.
21
@Armando: And as expected, Anthony Kennedy is retiring.
Can the day possibly get any worse? A Trumpian Supreme Court that will affect this country for decades.
I will amend Sinclair Lewis’s brilliant take on fascism with this: It will come in a fist wrapped in a velvet glove clutching the plans for our submission. Those who are cheering this news today have absolutely NO idea how fragile our way of government is becoming on an almost daily basis. If they did, Trump wouldn’t have gotten within 1,000 miles of the White House.
I always feared demagoguery would become a force here; I only hoped I wouldn’t be around to see it.
1
That's pretty much the exact opposite of this ruling, but I'm sure that your friends will agree with you.
1
What a bunch of political hacks on this court and you, Justice Kennedy, are a disgrace.
5
leeches. The only way to fight this is to make it so that your coworkers arent leeches.
2
This court is an abomination. Rightwing ideologues run the country.
8
In a nation of stupid individuals collective action is an oxymoron. Thus hate on unions. Yes there are problems with unions but that is because they are real people trying to manage and help each other.
This is a corporate court made of at least 3 very seditious men hiding behind religion and retribution at all who benefited from the New Deal.! Unions.
These are not esteemed male judges but narrow minded scholastics counting the angels on the head of the pin and finding the pin doesn't exist but there are angels. Employers.
Idiots! I want to care less about you the US but you interfere in everything in the world. Including my future.
The world needs to put a wall around you and let you kill each other.
5
Now the entire country is a Right To Work For Nothing State thanks to this oligarchic decision.
Enjoy your slave labor wages, Republican voters.
The Trump Toilet just keeps on flushing American down its fetid drain.
25
Open the borders wide open, flood the market with qualified workers to whom slaves’ wages look good and we can then all sit back in the shade with a cup in our hands. The .1% can hold gold ones to denote their class. It’s about time we learned to stop beating our brains out.
So will the workers who opt of paying union dues reap the salary and other benefits the rest of the union negotiates?
3
Of course. This is the fulfillment of the know nothing, something for nothing imbecility gripping white people in Amerika.
Private sector in the US has been de-unionised long ago...with relentless off-shoring. Private sector workers not only lost jobs, they also lost their pensions. This lowered the tax base of cities. Nevertheless the public sector unions bargained and obtained better pay and better pension for their workers year after year, while cities because of their lowered tax base had to borrow to pay those salaries and benefits. Result? Every state in the US is deep under-water and will never be able to fulfill their promise to public sector workers without raising taxes, cutting services, raising public sector worker contributions and cutting public sector benefits. Either that or declare bankruptcy which will hurt the poorest cities/municipalities.
https://www.statedatalab.org/state_data_and_comparisons/
10
So, your argument is that instead of raising the wages and incomes of the private sector back to where they were, we should slash public sector wages instead?
Sounds like a plan to make America into a third world nation.
1
How does one raise private sector wages under globalisation agenda? Unless the companies are prevented from off-shoring private sector jobs and ban illegal immigration which drives down wages of those jobs which are still retained in the US, there will not be any wage rise. And that's why we see no wage pressure despite record low unemployment. Public sector jobs was hitherto protected from globalisation tornado because their jobs could not be off-shored/ could not be lost to illegal immigrants. However they will be affected indirectly. And by the way, US has already turned into third world country. Just ask those erstwhile factory workers and those employees of gig-economy. In third world countries private sector employees have no job/retirement security. No OSHA or worker protection. While government workers (public sector) enjoy all. Government keeps raising taxes which no one pays. Result is corruption and black underground economy.
I have two thoughts about how unions could minimize damage resulting from this ruling.
1. My NYS UUP contract requires a contribution from all employees, but only contributions from union members go to the union. Other employees still pay the same amount but can designate that it be directed to a different cause. This removes the monetary incentive to leave the union because the money does not go back to the worker, yet they still have control over the money to make sure it doesn't support views they disagree with. Based on my understanding, this would be permissible under the recent ruling.
2. A contract could also be negotiated requiring the employer to make a contribution to the union for each employee rather the employee paying the union directly. This could be revenue neutral for the employer if raises were decreased proportionally. If the employer agrees to such a contract, their first amendment rights are not being infringed on, and since the employee doesn't pay the union, neither are theirs.
4
I truly believe the worker who may not have agreed with all his labor union's decisions was short-sighted.
The only reason he has good benefits and good pay is probably because of the union.
See how much clout he has as an individual if he goes to his employer and asks for a decent wage? Or better yet, try to negotiate health premiums and/or coverages on a one to one basis? That should get him nowhere.
While I have never worked in a union job, yes I can understand one's reluctance to pay for something you may not necessarily agree with. But dues pay for a lot of things.
The concept of joining a union or any establishment, is that you will get something in return. If this individual believes he won't, then possibly he should try working elsewhere and see how the other half lives.
8
Public sectors unions extract economic rents that all taxpayers bear.
Public sector employees already have gold plated pensions which will end up costing so much over the next 25 years that government services in many states and municipalities will have to be cut back to pay out retirees.
This is what you get when cops and librarians retire at age 55 with 35 years left of free health care and $100k+ pensions. Just another example of our government kicking the can for the next generation to foot the bill.
This of course has nothing to do the with the legal decision, which I'm not sure I agree with (I agree with the principle of individual autonomy and freedom from compulsion to join or contribute to an organization you don't agree with, but for economic matters such as union representation I'm not sure I agree it implicates the same core concerns).
15
Rather than seeing this SC decision as a defeat for labor, look at it as a victory for the right to work. Thank you.
7
If you work, you most likely benefit from some kind of protection bargained for and won at some point by a union. And I’m not talking about the 40-hour work week, weekends, safety requirements, etc., that we all know about, but rather job security, wages, and other workplace issues that affect employee productivity and morale. All benefit from these gains, whether or not they pay dues.
Workers, who were supposed to triumph under a Trump presidency, continue to get undermined. If anyone had any lingering question about whether unions were under fire in this nation got their answer today.
Regressive decisions take time to bear their fruit. So applaud it now, but regret it later.
9
Them southern workers cracked the code on the right to work as slaves. Congrats. Sub-minimum forever!
2
The right to work part-time for $5 an hour and no benefits, LOL
1
Well, the obvious option is to redirect the millions public sector unions now donate to Democratic candidates and organizations to collective bargaining efforts, basically tending to their knitting and making those bargaining efforts whole again.
Just a thought.
3
"The court based its ruling on the First Amendment, saying that requiring payments to unions that negotiate with the government forces workers to endorse political messages that may be at odds with their beliefs."
Is this really where the First Amendment is headed? As long as it's in place, it may as well be used for everything? Maybe integrating neighborhoods and workplaces will be seen as an infringement on First Amendment rights. Maybe outlawing the power to censor is actually an infringement on First Amendment rights. Why, gun-owners have nothing to fear! Even if the Second Amendment is appealed, it could be argued that gun-ownership is a First Amendment right.
3
Hopefully, this decision will make people who believe in unions invest more time and money into them. Growing up in the 50's-60's my family benefited tremendously because my father was part of a union shop. We had a modest roof over our heads, food on the table, clothing and health care, in other words, safety and security. His union uncovered corruption in the company that would have jeoparidized everyones health care and retirement and in the long run, saved the company and it's employees investments in their benefits. Think twice people before you decide not to pay your union dues before it is to late.
2
Wondering how this Supreme Court would vote if a case came before it where a hospital said they didn't want to be forced to treat people who couldn't pay the cost of the treatment.
3
I am deeply disappointed by the Janus decision. The right wingers have won this battle but they won't win the war. I think the decision is incorrect. There should be no free riders. If a person opts out of paying dues, I don't think that person should be entitled to anything the union provides or obtains, including representation at grievances and even negotiated raises. That person should fend for themselves. Hopefully, unions will be stronger because of this decision. All this over $50 a paycheck. Mr. Janus was hoodwinked by the right wingers.
3
The Supreme Court's reasoning is that a person cannot be forced to pay for action with which they disagree. Of course, that's exactly what governments do: they force people to do things.
3
I can't speak to the effect of this ruling nationwide but I sure am glad to see this from my perch here in NYC. Maybe now we can improve our subways without paying 6x what it costs in other major cities around the world. I am also thrilled that this will loosen the strangle hold unions have on elections here.
4
The problem with agency fees that non-members were forced to pay is that you as a non-member allow the union, which engages in political activism to support a political ideology that you do not subscribe to, to negotiate in your behalf and arbitrarily charge you a fee that is generally commingled with allocation for political support.
Unions should just focus on collective bargaining with employers and shun political engagement.
4
The "Asterisk" should actually be put beside the name of Chief Justice Roberts. As more and more cases are settled 5 to 4, it will show that he now only cares about placating an "ruling minority." While Justice is supposed to be blind, the current court is not. Neither the Right or Left should always be "right." At one time it looked like he cared how history would judge his court. It seems that is no longer the case.
4
If the workers can't be relied on to fund their unions without being forced to, you wonder if they shouldn't be left to stew in their own juices. Still, the ruling is clearly to protect the moneyed interests and harm the working class. This is the Republican Grand Scheme.
3
The gift of this decision is that it forces labor unions to restructure themselves in ways more in line with present day issues and tools of representation and influence. The right to associate and form organizations that represent common interests is undiminished. Only the outdated status quo has been disturbed and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
5
Yes, it has been diminished by this Court. Workers outside of unions are no longer allowed to join together for mutual aid and protection under the NLRA, per the new SC decision on forced arbitration of employment issues.
2
There can be no doubt that the Court is politically owned by the Republican Party. I was a public school teacher for 30 years and paid my union dues. It was well worth the money to be represented so I could have a voice in the conditions of my own employment. The Travel Ban decision yesterday was awful, but this Union decision is just as bad if not worse. I feel like there is no American institution that hasn't been co-oped by the Republican Party with help from the media and spineless Democratic leadership.
5
Under federal law, unions are required to bargain on behalf of every employee, even those who don't want to join. How is this not involuntary servitude? For a court that values "freedom" so highly, they don't value the freedom of the union members who are willing to pay for what they need. Republicans seem to love free riders--those who won't pay taxes to support roads they use, police and fire services they use, or any other community goods. Now they mandate free union representation to those who don't want to pay. Lovely little world when everything is free.
5
This is part of an ongoing pattern where the court system stomps on collective bargaining, a pattern that has existed for over 40 years: https://www.epi.org/blog/union-decline-rising-inequality-charts/ . This ties directly to increasing economic inequality.
It is difficult to see how things can begin to turn around in the current environs, although some are trying: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/9/17205064/union-labor-mo... .
3
Alternately, this is part of a pattern of declining government support for monopolistic practices in labor markets which artificially raise labor costs and prices.
4
random:
Rhetorically we hear this all the time. The data do not point in that direction. This is not to say that unions did not create problems, but wage stagnation, among other things, is tied directly to loss of collective bargaining power
If you are in the upper 10% this would not effect you much. But your arguments are those that help to keep wages and benefits down.
1
The decision should be good for the bosses and make wages go down in the long run. It’s also good for freeloading workers who still have to represent them.
1
Neither corporations (the legal personhood of which should be eliminated, since it is a way for the owners to avoid liability for misdeeds) nor workers should have special protections (the Constitution already requires equal protection under the law for all).
We should remove all special protections (for special groups), not just the protections for employees.
Think for yourself?
1
If I was Justice Kennedy’s legal counselor, I’d advise him to put off any early thoughts of retirement.
Notwithstanding his decision to join the conservative majority on this case, a vacant seat on the Court in Trump’s hands and the Republican Party at this moment in time would be nothing short of a catastrophe.
Like all real catastrophes, it would have to have a name and I’m guessing the name of this one would be Judge Roy Moore.
1
As a state worker and thus a member of the union, I see this differently. I do not see this as a "blow" to the union. This was never about the union. This was about the freedoms of individual state workers to decide if they want to be members of the union or not. If the union provides good value they will stick. Hopefully this will goad the unions to reduce their membership cost, indulge less in politics and more about not just protecting those who are slackers but also work for the hard working employees who are unable to be individually recognized.
10
Expect to earn significantly less money for the privilege.
There was a time when unions served a legitimate purpose, fighting for and preserving rights of workers. Even then there was a lot of corruption. Now, they are the forefront of entitlements that few people deserve. Unions are way past serving a purpose and now serve to cause a lack of productivity and an overpriced workforce that makes the US unable to compete in the world markets. Their demise is long overdue. I'm tired of my tax dollars going to support entitlements negotiated by unions for pensions for people who just "did their time."
6
Public service unions create a vicious cycle of politicians pandering to them for campaign contributions while passing the buck to future generations for poorly funded pension plans that are a weight around the neck of the municipalities across the country. Government workers are freed from the shackles of having to pay for labor unions that are merely a means for the Democrats to fatten their campaign coffers.
5
It's about time. Now, conservative union members will have more influence. For too long union leadership supported political candidates whose views on religious,moral,guns and social policies were diametrically opposed to rank and file. Democrats no longer have a unimpeded pipeline of cash from this captive group to further leftist policies.
4
Except no one asks me when I buy a bottle of shampoo if I want a share of the revenue to go to a political action of some kind - whether it be a lobbyist or a political party. I have no choice - especially if this activity is obscured. This is the fairness problem.
3
A customer only has to get value for the product sold. The sacrifice of cash is borne by the shareholder. Shareholders do decide on corporate policy regarding contributions of all kinds.
It just feels hopeless sometimes. I've taught without a contract for over a year. Our union tries, but the other side won't negotiate. Meanwhile, when I get a COLA, it's 2% while my rent, health care costs, etc. go up by way more than that.
Now , unions will be further weakened and public sector employees will surely fall even further behind.
Income inequality continues to grow. and our society is being torn apart.
I'm lucky compared to the Somali students and others who are in far worse straits than me. That's what really breaks my heart.
2
I came from a Union household and worked 27 years as a NYC teacher. During those 27 years, I never felt that my union was representing my interests. In the early years, they represented the older workers with Tier I Pensions. I know of at least one such person whose pension is well over $110,000 a year. They represented Special Ed Teachers, Gym Teachers, Social Workers and Councilors. Every special interest was looked after except the grunts who taught full classes and were expected to grade homework. When people tried to organize to change the system, the union used all of its power to retain control. In many ways, the Union leadership acted like the Mafia. Maybe now it the union wants its members to contribute to their operations, they will allow the rank and file real opportunity to influence policy.
6
Give me a break. I grew up in NYC and the teachers union is one of the strongest in the state. You got all the benefits of being in a union, including not having to negotiate your own wages and benefits. You sold out your union because of "political positions? You are already refunded for political action you don't agree with, that's the law, even has its own paragraph. So you just want the BENEFITS w/o having to pay for them. Yup typical conservative. How about you count yourself lucky to have had a union teachers job for 27 yrs, when so many new, just graduated, teachers can't find a single district that will hire full time.
It’s a sad day for unions. May they be able to reinvent themselves and come back roaring strong.
2
Since this is all about taking money away from the Democrats, because unions have always given political contributions to them, it's time for the churches and religious organizations to start paying taxes. Their exemption of taxes should be repealed, since they are huge supporters and contributors to the Republicans. Separation of church and state.
11
What churches are sending money to political candidates? I missed that one.
1
You're right. Correction... churches are not allowed to contribute to political campaigns, but they still have a very strong political influence in endorsements. They are not a bipartisan, and favor the Republicans. Still..that in itself, should revoke their tax exempt status, as they are politically motivated toward one party.
“President Obama's unpopularity was a big factor in the Democratic party's setbacks. Exit polls for NBC News found that only 44 percent of voters approved of Obama's job performance and 54 percent disapproved.” US News and World Report, Nov. 5, 2014
This is Obama’s real legacy. The Republicans won both the House and the Senate big time which made it possible for McConnell to refuse Merrick Garland a hearing on his nomination. Democrats can cry foul, but Obama essentially abandoned them. At the last minute he desperately campaigned for Hillary as an extension of himself, but he had already been repudiated by the voters in 2016. Too little, too late.
3
So now Mr. Janus has the right to Mooch. He will get the benefits of the collective bargaining done by the union and not have to pay any dues.
2
Well, I have to admit one thing about Trump. He said that his supporters would win so often that they would get tired of winning. While the media focuses on the small losses, he is winning every big issue. And I don't think his supporters are tired of winning yet. Why, why why, did we nominate Hillary Clinton, the only person on the planet who could have lost to Trump?!?
4
This is why the Republicans in congress put up with Trump, sure he comes with a lot of baggage, but he gave them the tax cut, and he gave them the Supreme Court.
3
Forcing some people to buy a service they don't want from a third party so that other people may be better off is never going to be popular. That was the problem with Obamacare.
4
Now we are beginning to see the real results of the 2016 election. The workers who voted for Trump will feel nothing but pain.
2
Given the way the last Supreme Court seat was filled, it would take a remarkable level of denial to expect anything other than political decisions from this Court, consistently favoring Republicans. These people are smart, so they will have no trouble coming up with legal reasoning to justify their predetermined decisions. Analysts who attempt to parse the Court's thinking are wasting their time. The process is totally political. I suspect that the Republican justices are also smart enough not to rule in ways that would actually hurt the Republican cause. I suspect, for example, that Roe is safe, since a simple reversal would take abortion off the political table, and that has been the Republicans best issue for some time.
The "conservative" (actually radical right) majority of the Supreme Court are not really jurists but Republican political operatives. Every important case(almost all decided by the same 5-4 lineup) is decides in accordance with the policy goals of the Republican party. And this is not because the Republican position had the obvious weight of law behind it: in almost every case, the rationales are so twisted and flimsy (such as using a mailed notice in the Ohio voter purge case to get around the clear intent of the law that voters may not be purged for mere failure to vote) that they would been embarrassing if offered by a first year Con Law student when I attended Cornell Law forty years ago. They are also ridiculously contradictory, such as the holding that extraneous statements by state officials in the state officials in the Colorado baker case could be used to show anti-religious animus but the myriad of statements by our popular vote losing president displaying anti-Muslim animus could not.
4
Since the important cases seem to be decided by the same 5-4 lineup, I could argue that it is the judicial activists of the liberal minority who are (attempting) to politicize the Court. Either shoe fits. Either way, it reinforces the perceived criticality by both sides of taking / keeping control of the Court. I think the proposals to limit terms of Justices such that one or two are replaced each presidential term make a lot of sense in that regard.
2
Very wise decision. Unlike private sector unions, Public sector unions should not exist. They negotiate with the politicians which they help elect, almost always democrat. This unholy alliance makes a mockery of balance of power and fair negotiation. Urban areas are drowning under the flood of unsustainable benefits and pensions promised to unions by their kept politicians. This has harmed service quality to tax payers and it oppresses junior employees while showering lavish benefits on retirees abusing the system and union leadership. With this decision unions will have at least to sell themselves to all their members. The decision didn’t go far enough. Public sector unions should be banned as an oxymoronic construct.
5
But I still have to cover the tax loopholes of churches whose beliefs I don’t share. Of course.
We are seeing the right wing playbook front and center: withhold even a hearing for Merrick Garland, install Gorsuch and other judicial activists to interpret the Constitution with favorabiloty toward corporations and religion, cut off workers at the knees, overturn Roe, Brown, and, eventually, the Establishment Clause, and seal the borders for the theocracy Republicans will refer to in Orwellian overtones, i.e. poverty is freedom.
McConnell is the most dangerous political figure we have ever known in our modern history, certainly more so than Trump could ever hope to be.
But cheer up, Hillary haters and third-party voters. At least you can be smugly proud of your principles as you beg for food from a cardboard box.
5
I’ve been a member of three unions in my life, and remain an active member of two. None of them have been public unions. I welcome this ruling.
Not all unions are created equal. Public unions are parasites, and are responsible for the budget crunches in many of our states and cities. They reduce citizens to the status of customers, and eventually burdens.
I applaud anything that moves them closer to extinction.
9
Supreme Court is now an agent for 1% wealthy American after American Express and today's ruling and doing it with false and flawed rationale of First Amendment.
Heartbreaker. Erosion is underway and we all know that erosion must end with a landslide.
My mother, an 89 year old widow in good health with all her faculties, lives in a house by herself in New Jersey. She is a life-long Democrat, worked as my father's bookkeeper in his law office for 40 years, receives Social Security, has an IRA from which she is required to take certain sums each year (fully taxed), and has other savings. NJ is a very high property tax state, and now that she's widowed and single, her tax rates have dramatically increased, especially with the new tax law that will force her to pay up to $5,000 in additional federal taxes for this year. She vehemently disagrees with the Trump Admin., and feels she is being ripped off in so many ways. Why should she have to pay additional taxes at age 89 when the Republican majority Supreme Court continues to allow the degradation of our democracy along with the capricious and lobbyist-bought Republican Congress? She was a child of Polish and Austrian immigrants, the first in her family to get a college degree (at CUNY at age 20), worked hard her whole life after her parents scrimped and saved during the Great Depression, and now she sits and watches MSNBC and is ashamed for our nation.
17
She could move to a lower-cost, lower-tax state. Just saying...
If she keeps watching fake news she'll be "ashamed" for the rest of her life. Time for her to turn the channel to Fox Business or FNC.
The race to the bottom proceeds apace. Will state pensions be next?
God willing, yes!!!!
Why should YOU get a pension -- paid for by ME -- when I get NOTHING?
1
Given a choice between the rights of workers and the power of employers a conservative court will always rule on the side of employers further enriching and entrenching their power and putting the boots on the necks of workers who dare to ask for more than $7.25 federal minimum wage which Republicans will never raise.
The last rise in the minimum wage was in 2007 under GW Bush -- it did not rise one penny under Obama.
1
The 5-4 majority shows that the conniving of Senator McConnell has had unreasonable influence on critical matters. Gorsuch has shown that he is an echo not a voice.
1
And I don't want my tax dollars used to sell arms to Saudi Arabia. Where is the Court on that, can I sue, can I withhold portions of my taxes for the many uses of those dollars that I abhor?
2
Shocked. I'm shocked, I tell you, to find anti-collective bargaining sentiments on the right-wing Supreme Court.
I'm looking at you, all you folks in Pennsylvania and the upper Midwest who thought Donald Trump could bring back your rust belt jobs and didn't realize that even if he could, your union-fought-for benefits would be out the window.
Shame on all y'all.
So do they reject the benefits of the wages and working conditions that the union negotiates? This is so wrong. What made this country great after WW II was unions and public education, both under attack from the Vichy GOP.
2
Imagine the howls of outrage in this "progressive" forum if Democrats were forced, through payroll deductions, to fund speech supporting the Koch brothers. No American citizen should have his wages garnished to fund ideas antithetical to his own. This is a victory for all workers, regardless of their private political views.
2
Freedom is the individual deciding if they want to pay or not. Thats freedom, thats choice! Not being forced to pay which doesn't sound like freedom to me! Not sure why people are against freedom to make decisions for yourself, scary.
1
The new slavery: Workers without rights, unions. Workers struggling with low wages and long hours.
Workers lose (again) whiles corporations and owners win. At some point workers will not have the money needed to buy what they produce. Then what?
1
It is obvious that the Supreme Court is a political tool. There is no need to have justices appointed for life. There should be term limits with a balanced make up representing multiple political parties, women and minorities and men. Otherwise, the Court is just an extension of the executive branch doing the bidding of the party in control. It would also avoid the shameful actions by McConnell in stacking the Court. More disgraceful GOP activity.
1
Those who make peaceful progress and citizen democracy impossible make violent rebellion inevitable.
The seniors in my extended family have all abandoned the Republican Party. The didn't leave the Party because of the travesty of the Trump presidency. They left the Party several years ago. They left the GOP when it began its attacks on Unions and organized labor. These seniors were around when Americans fought and died to form workers' Unions. They did not take these victories for granted. Watching the GOP foment resentment towards American workers and US Unions was more than they could stomach. For them, this is a bridge too far. Shame on the GOP and any working class Americans who foolishly vote Republican.
9
Labor and consumers make no difference to this court, all that counts are corporate owners or government. So much for any balance of power.
1
Question: Did the Supreme Court just rule that I cannot be forced to pay fees (i.e. taxes) to support positions I do not agree with?
Answer: Of course not but that is a logical conclusion.
Replace fees for taxes and government for union and ask yourself what is the difference? I'm being facetious but not really. The outcome of the ruling is the same and may be good for this country to bring us back to fees (taxation) with real representation.
3
Unions have always been able to dole out benefits according to class of employee. Full timers get one thing and part timers get another.Those who entered the union after 2005 get one thing and those who entered before get another. Perhaps I am missing something, but it seems to me that unions should be able to withhold or reduce the benefits of non-dues payers. Those folks have the right not to pay but I think the unions have the right to assure that they get what they pay for. If that's right, problem solved.
5
Employers can be members of lobbying groups that use profits I helped that corporation earn to influence legislators for or against many bills or policies that are political and with which I disagree. Are my first amendment rights violated?
7
You are a worker. It is none of your business. It is the business of shareholders and yes, they do get to vote on it.
The idea that if there is a union it must represent all workers in its bargaining unit is required in the private sector by federal law. Public sector collective bargaining is a state by state decision, and each state can require whatever it chooses. The federal government has its own bargaining unit and representation system that also very different from private sector federal law.
Since public sector collective bargaining has a history that goes back only to the 1960s. Before that the vast majority of states relied on a sovereignty principle that did not recognize the right of public employees to organize and resist their "sovereign".
Since this decision rests on the First Amendment, it will inevitably lead to attacks on the constitutionality of the NLRA for private sector employees. And given that this Supreme Court is eager to overrule decisions that don't go the way they want policy in this country to go, such an attack might well be successful.
People who do believe in collective bargaining will be forced to reassess how it will be structured in the future. It might well be possible for states that have public sector collective bargaining to recognize multiple bargaining agents in each unit as the federal government does. Or they might relieve a union from the obligation of representing non-members and have bargaining contracts that only cover the employee conditions of union members.
2
Unions addressed a serious structural issue when it comes to the labor market--asymmetrical power. It is costly for workers to migrate to higher paying places and there are lots of workers. Meanwhile, the far fewer businesses can collude by capitalizing on the costly nature of worker migration to hold wages artificially low. Util now it has been unions versus these extremely well endowed and organized benefactors of business. With this ruling, wages will fall and the rich will get richer as the powerful exercise their new-found leverage.
5
The extreme right-wing members of the Supreme Court of Immoral Trumpers should have made very clear that any gain by the unions should not be enjoyed by those who don't pay dues.
YES!!! As even FDR recognized, public sector unions are a blight on this country and should not exist. The government, elected by the people, does not need this counterbalance that only leads to massive corruption. Unions supporting the very politicians that they then negotiate with has to stop - and this is the first, very big step in that direction!!
5
kiss these goodbye -- your memories of and dreams for the middle class, for affordable healthcare, for a civil society where children are given an education and ambition, where the poor, old, and disabled are given a hand. It's over.
Thank McConnell in any way you feel appropriate.
8
American workers never understood what class struggle is about. When the working class decides that a corrupt oligarchy is to rule over their own lives, they pay a price. This is but a small sample of what is to come. Without the civilizing strength of Europe, which stopped when European immigration ended decades ago, this country's future is bleaker than ever.
Another dark day in the history of our country. In the guise of “freedom” the forces of Organized Money have triumphed again.
1
Should we be surprised? The conservatives on the Supreme Court truly ARE NOT fair and unbiased!
7
The Supreme Court of the United States need to be renamed ASAP. The new name should be the Supreme Court of the Republicans! The recent decisions show absolutely clearly that the 5 conservative judges know who their allegiance is with - the Republican Party & Trump! These 5 have ceded their common sense and duty to the Constitution and the People to the GOP and Trumpism! I do not recognize this Court as capable of taking care of my needs as an ordinary American citizen. I am not a Republican or a white male! Neither am I part of the Christian Right! In the Trump world I cannot/do not expect justice in this Court!
It is easy to take something for granted that when it has always been there for you. Now that Unions have been dealt a significant blow the things you come to expect such as weekends, sick time, paid leave will be a thing of the past.
kagen and soto mayer might as well resign
we will own the court for decades
and after kennedy retires
6-3
4
I hope Democrats who sat on their heels and didn’t bother to vote in the 2016 Presidential election, and those who wasted their vote by writing in Sanders or Stein, are taking note. Leeting Trump squeak by resulted in Gorsuch doing lasting damage on the Supreme Court. However unenthusiastic you may feel about Democratic candidates, you must hold your nose and get yourself to the polls to vote Democratic in every election, starting in 2018.
1
Is now a good time to thank those who considered Hillary to be just as bad as Donald? All those Jill Stein voters and the ones who wrote in Bernie or abstained? Thanks for sticking by your moral guns and delivering the SC to all these 5-4 conservative rulings that will eviscerate any civil rights and social justice. I hope you're happy. That said, in November, please do what's best for the majority of the country and vote for a Democrat.
3
During the beginning of the twentieth century the Court was referred to as the Lochner Era. Today, the Lochner Era is seen as a dark time in the Courts history. If a lawyer or judge is called Lochnerian it is an insult on that persons reputation.
It will be unsurprising if this court will be considered the new Lochner Court. After its countless partisan and misguided rulings. Rulings, like this one, that upend decades long precedent and invalidate law that was created by legislatures. While upholding laws created by an executive order banning the immigration of people from predominantly Muslim countries because the law was neutral on its face, yet any person who pays attention to the news knows the intent was to discriminate.
Let’s just put it this way: no lawyer or judge is going to want to be called Robertian 20 years from now.
The attack on the average American and their rights continues. The Gorsuch play looks like the winner the Koch brothers and conservatives dictated. The only hope is to find Trump colluded with Russians and his presidency becomes null and void along with all of his actions and appointments. The U.S. is becoming a banana republic under Trump. We are rapidly coming to the end of our world leadership and dominance and possibly with these continuous attacks to end of our democracy.
The GOP controls all branches of government. If you want to change that - make sure your voter registration is ready for November NOW and then vote on Nov 6. Their worst nightmare is that we all turn out and VOTE.
1
People who want union benefits without paying dues are just looking for another republican handout. And this Supreme Court will give it to them. Shame on all of us.
1
The Conservative Supreme Court Justices should be ashamed of themselves for their relentless attacks against the working men and women of America.
1
"Neil Gorsuch voted with the majority."
We are in the slide toward totalitarian rule --- an administration warm to dictators, while fighting our traditional allies and lurching onward to Russia.
A president thinking he might build condos in North Korea.
Getting richer while in office. Decisions made that benefit him and his family-- i.e. the tax bill.
A partial and political Supreme Court is majority right wing: Muslim ban, weaken voting rights, providers can lie to pregnant women, modern unions possibly destroyed.
Next up: the end of collective bargaining for workers? Trump can pardon himself? Elections can again be infiltrated by Russia? Trump really can shoot someone on 5th Avenue?
More Trumpian "winning" for the working man/woman.
With friends like Trump, they will be winning the race to the bottom in record time.
2
Ironic that the plaintiff's name is Janus, since that dominant Scotus 'band,' "The Dead Scalias" face but one way ... to the 'right' (which is so very wrong).
1
As a union supporter but a stronger freedom advocate I applaud this decision. Just like my right to work at what I choose and where no union has the right to make me pay or no job.... period.
As for the free rider sham, I disagreed with the collective bargaining stance that caved in on funding pensions in return for overprotective of lazy and substandard employees. Did the union represent my and a majority of my colleagues views?... definitely not... but the union bosses still extorted my money.
Union yes.... extortion NO
15
The current Supreme Court is the last domino to fall.
Barry Goldwater nudged Richard Nixon who nudged Ronald Reagan who nudged G.H.W. Bush who nudged G.W. Bush who nudged Mitch McConnell and John Boehner and Paul Ryan who enabled Donald Trump.
And on 11/08/2016, they all came falling down.
It's official.....this nation is an Oligarchy, relegating workers to slave labor wages, zero representation and a life of economic hardship while the profits of their labor only go to the top.
It is time to repeat history from the 1930s. Millions of workers must hit the streets with protests, demonstrations and yes, militancy. We must fight back.
7
It is going top be 30-50 years before all the damage this packed court is doing can be neutralized.
Prediction: Obergefell will b overturned within 2 years, before the next President, whoever that might be takes office and Roe v Wade within four years after that. We are well on our way to becoming a theocracy ruled by Conservative Christians.
Fine, then let the freeloading workers bargain for themselves to get a lower wage. Oh, but that would probably violate some other sacrosanct constitutional provision. Makes me sick that Janus wants the benefits of the union but is unwilling to bear the minor financial burden associated with the benefit. And to claim this is a violation of his free speech is ludicrous. I am forced to pay taxes to a government that daily offends my beliefs, but I can’t opt out.
The Republicans, and particularly the loathesome Mitch McConnell, have made a tremendous error in defying and re-writing the Constitution to suit their political purposes in stacking the Supreme Court.
Not only did their behavior in smugly denying Obama the nomination he was Constitutionally and electorally entitled to have considered and voted upon violate their oath of office, it has had the effect of unmistakably politicizing the Court. Instead of standing as the last bastion of non-partisan deliberation and authority, McConnell's vicious, illegal and spiteful machinations to hand the nomination to an unelected, unsupported hooligan has undermined the stature and legitimacy of the Supreme Court itself.
The spate of 5-4 decisions in the last ten days have upended established precedent, ignored the body of Constitutional law and delivered the interests of The People into the hands of the corporate and politically connected. Gag orders in reckless pursuit of profit, institutionalized bigotry, Christian supremacy, protected lying and now an assault on the inconvenience of labor unions have all been set loose by these same five Republican shills, cheered on by politicians so blinded by the personal benefits to be gained by short-term 'wins' that they disregard the long-term damage they are doing to the American body politic.
If shame were possible to a Trump enabler, these ersatz "justices" and the corrupt GOP would be writhing. Sadly, Trump hath banished shame.
13
Unions and liberals in general are reaping the consequences of their stupid refusal to learn how to argue these issues. They need to stop appealing to the "unfairness" argument (Oh, poor me!); it sounds like whining. The way to fight back is to bring the same arguments against aggregation of capital. When people invest in mutual funds or (for the more wealthy) private investment partnerships, they are benefiting from the collective bargaining power of thousands of people pooling their capital. Similarly, corporations are nothing more than legal structures for aggregating financial resources. These are like "unions" for investors.
Labor and shareholders should bring lawsuits against investment funds and corporations banning them from charging management fees or paying their executives salaries as long as they take political stands the shareholders don't support. Such lawsuits are unlikely to succeed with the current court, but they will wake people up to the fundamental asymmetry in the way labor and capital are treated in this country, and may help lead to a change.
4
Shareholders do get a vote and many votes have occurred. They almost always fail. Still Berkshire Hathaway does offer a feature where shareholders can indicate preferences for charities. To my knowledge, it works fine.
News of the day from "Team Mitch!" Right (as in extreme right wing) on! Further evidence, I suppose, that the Swamp Drainers have put an end to that Obama-era judicial activism they pointed to and deplored for eight years. Might as well make those, Taiwanese made MAGA ball caps part of the judicial uniform for the Fab Five...
1
So now the seat that McConnell single handedly stole from Obama comes back to haunt the average American worker. Republicans again demonstrating how they never were a political party so much as shill operatives for wealthy interests and rely on gerrymandering, preventing voters from getting to booths and the entire bag of tricks they use to stay in the game.
"Right to Work" always was an invention they created in the RNC wing devoted to double speak and a shameful scab's move to take away workers' Freedom. The only fair thing to do is to exclude scabs from the benefits and raises Unions Collectively Bargain for. Republicans are simply the enemy of the hardest working people.
Since he claims to be a strict constitutionalist, I assume that Neil Gorsuch will promptly resign his unconstitutionally stolen Supreme Court seat upon election of the next Democratic President.
3
Let's not lose sight of the fact that this ruling is the fruit of a stolen Supreme Court seat.
Chasing administration officials out of restaurants is petty, morally questionable, ineffective and counterproductive. Repaying this theft, however, will be absolutely necessary for the Democrats (and democracy) once the tables are turned and they're in a position to do so if they don't want to be the Republicans' punks forevermore.
I thought conservatives hated judicial activism. This was about weakening the Democratic party. Anyone who thinks otherwise has the wool pulled over his eyes.
The makeup of the SCOTUS is the same as when Justice Scalia was on it. The Travel Ban and the Union ruling would have been the same.
We can do if"s all day long: If Clinton ran a better campaign she would have won. If Obama picked a moderate Justice, he may have passed. If the Reps. had hearings on Obama's nominee maybe he would be on the SCOTUS now. If Scalia didn't die, these rulings would have been the same. Many if's.
If more people vote in November........!
So Corporations are people and can pour unlimited amounts of "dark money" into the system. But the money spigot from labor must be turned off - making any kind of level playing field a joke. When will the American worker wake up to this hypocrisy? Do we have to go back to the days when children jumped from the windows of burning factories? Considering Trump's handling of child refugees, this horrifying thought could well become a reality. And when Trump and his enablers overturn child labor laws, this court will find in their favor.
4
And they say crime doesn't pay!
Well, it's paying huge dividends for Mitch McConnell!
I will never forgive Obama for not installing Garland. He should have told McConnell that by refusing to hold hearings, he was abdicating the Senates right to advise and consent, and seated Garland by default.
And he should have then told McConnell that if he had a problem with that, he could take it up with the Supreme Court.
Every single conservative 5-4 decision from this court is THE PRODUCT OF CONSTITUTIONAL THEFT. Period. There are no, if's-and's-or-but's about it. And nothing, absolutely nothing, will change that fact.
McConnell single handedly de-legitimized the highest court in the land. It is no longer "The Supreme Court", or "The Robert's Court", it's "Mitch McConnell's Personal Court".
My level of disgust and anger cannot be measured. And since the disgust and anger of democrats is the only thing that matters to the right these days, this should make them very happy.
I hope this court sees fit to get rid of: the minimum wage, child labor laws, overtime, all unions, Civil Rights, Roe V Wade, the separation of church and state, due process, and every constitutional protection for the poor and middle class, etc, etc, etc, while it restores: debtors prisons, chain gangs, indentured servitude, poll taxes, Jim Crow, and every other morally bankrupt injustice, etc, etc, etc.
I hope they turn this country into a sewer befitting their "constitution". It's what we all deserve.
2
This is what happens when you allow the political system to steal a SCOTUS seat.
6
I guess the GOP didnt like the 90% flow of cash to democrats during elections.
Another victory for our great republic! May our President have the opportunity to appoint one or more Supreme Court judges before he leaves office in 2024.
5
Stare decisis is out the window whenever it goes against the moneyed interests in this country. Thank you Mitch McConnell. If the Democrats win back the Senate in November, they should sit on all Trump judicial appointments.We can’t have a lame duck President imposing his views at the end of his presidency, can we?
1
The assault on the working class and the shift of power to the few – not the people – continues.
1
I assume liberals are cheering this decision because they are anti-union?
The essence of labor unions is to create a monopoly for lower skilled, blue collar American workers.
And liberals have been essentially killing American workers by welcoming 15M+ illegals, whom constitute a massive illegal oversupply in the labor market - antithetical to the essential monopolistic purpose of labor unions.
6
With the unemployment rate at 3.9% your argument of jobs going to illegals loses its puff. That number is below full employment, which means a dearth of capable workers.
While I'm disgusted with the SC decision, workers at this moment are less vulnerable to wage cuts. The job market is a competitive arena with employers wooing qualified employee and paying to keep them. It's unskilled labor that will be hurt the most today.
But that wom't last past the destined economic and social collapse under the current extreme conservatism at the switch. That's when everyone will be hurt.
This is satire right? Dems have been fighting FOR unions every step of the way. The GOP has been targeting unions for years. Unions keep wages up for everyone even if you dont belong to one. If a person receives a benefit for which they didn't have to pay for the cost of fighting for, that is called communism. NOT socialism. COMMUNISM. We just overturned a 40 year precedent to get what is, at its core, a totalitarian enactment. Russia has a law exactly like this. Then they crafted new laws which killed off unions for good. If no one else makes that connection here, understand that this is how a dictatorship starts.
Another attack on workers rights by the self proclaimed Workers President. Making America Great Again obviously doesn't include strong right for American Workers. They are weakening collective bargaining, they has weakened class action litigation, they have weakened work safety regulations. All very profitable for corporation and businessman, all very bad fro America's workers. The nastiest and most devious lie in the Trump package of lies.
Watching their protections die under Trump is all American workers can look forward to under this populist Trump. Trump let Conservatives do want they want no questions asked. Protections in place for 80 years are being overturned. What's next making SS voluntary?
1
Supreme court seems to be delivering sharp blows to draconian laws.
2
It seems as though the Trump/GOP master plan is to create a nation of mostly poor white people. The billionaires will still get their money from...somewhere, and the majority will be lucky to have low-paying jobs as more and more are automated, have little or no medical care, and few or no schools (except religious ones.) Hope I die before I get old.
Where is the Cry from the right about those Activist Judges?
1
I wonder if all the liberals and libertarians who voted for 3rd party candidates and Trump or just didn't vote due to believing all the false info on Clinton now feel so smug?
2
I vote Libertarian and yes, we embrace smugness. It is part of the package. If other people are consistently misguided, you cannot help it.
I should not be forced to pay fees for positions I don't agree with either. I should be allowed to deduct Neil Gorsuch's salary from my taxes. He isn't a legitimate Supreme Court justice. I shouldn't have to pay Paul Ryan's salary, he unilaterally stops bills submitted by my representative from getting voted on. I shouldn't have to pay for Mitch McConnell, both on I don't agree with him basis and because my religion forbids supporting racist con men. Above all, I shouldn't have to pay Kirstjen Nielsen's salary, she is a criminal violator of human rights law, refugee law, and torture law, and a serial child abuser.
There is no rule of law in a country where the legitimacy of the law is decided by someone not legitimately appointed. If Mark Janus doesn't have to pay for politics he doesn't agree with, I don't have to pay for a corruptly partisan Supreme Court.
11
Once SCOTUS emasculates labor (corporations run a muck), gives the okay to gerrymandering (GOP "carries" states they could not win fairly), establishes race-based voting impediments (same outcome) winks at discrimination against women and gays (promoting deep inequality) and allows a religious-based ban on Muslims (meat for the base to get out the Trump vote), what will constitutes democracy?
As a former union member and then chief steward for a
public service union, having everyone as a dues paying member showed managment that the union was strong. If people don't want to pay union dues, then they shouldn't
get ANY OF THE BENEFITS. NONE. If a contract is negotiated, non fee paying members will get nothing negotiated. Nothing. No more vacation days, if more sick days (or ANY sick days) are negotiated they don't get it. If something with health coverage is negotiatied, they get nothing. And, if they get in trouble with a supervisor or have a problem with management and want to file a girevance-NOPE. You're on your own. No pay no play. The union should not have to represent people who are free loaders.
You know, I'm 67, last year when I was 66 and having some medical problems, I used to say "just give me 20 more years (I figure 86 was good enough) now I'm down to 19 years and the way things are going, I don't want to live in what this country is becoming and my family (well some of my family) has been here since 1638. If we could get some form of medicare overseas, I would be so tempted to just up and leave. I tell young people, if you've got your degree and think you can find a job-head north.
I'll be dead before we fix what this big orange Mussolini wanna be and his gang of sycophants have brought on this county. Every day is a new horror.
3
This decision has re-defined the term "scab".
We will know who you are.
And one day in your private life, you will ask yourself was the decision to reap the benefits of collective bargaining for free really worth it.
3
No surprises here. It is a Republican strategy to reward free-loaders and siphon off power into fewer and fewer hands. The executive branch is replete with examples, the tenant in the White House and la familia being number one on the list.
Why can't the Unions introduce a pay/benefit scale: Union members, non-Union members, if you didn't pay for it you don't get it - freedom of choice and taking responsibility for consequences in real time. That used to be called being a mature adult, but this administration calls it stupid and weak to be responsible or courageous, ethical, moral, and having integrity is the worst of all sins for Republicans.
4
This is what passes for "thinking" by ultra right wing "judges." There is not a rational statement in the entire decision. Now unions will represent freeloaders more than actual union members. One thing was proven - Gorsuch earned his reputation as a lightweight judge. Not an original thought in that entire brain of his. Guess his proven-corrupt mommy's work promoting him for un-deserved judgeships paid off though.
4
Union houses are just going to have to figure out how to legally represent the paying members and not the non-paying members.
"Wait? You're upset that Joe Union got a 2.5% raise every year for the last 5 years and improved medical choices and you didn't? Sorry bucko, you wanted this. Pull up your bootstraps and find another job then."
2
Will you look at those storm clouds on the horizon! We teach your kids, clean your offices, collect your garbage, and direct your traffic. Mark Janus is a well-placed little puppet and I hope he appreciates the pay cut and degradation he just won for himself and the rest of us---I am in two unions, baby!---who actually work for a living and not work to destroy the living, as the three branches of government seem to do daily. And now for civility: This decision is not a good one.
1
The unions were about the only working class section that widely contributed to the DNC and democrats. You've already lost that voting block, because the hatred of blue collar workers (who are not in the correct identity block) is so obvious within the lock step "progressive" orthodoxy.
I also don't recall any similar outrage when lower courts abused their judicial power to join the resistance and make overreaching rulings.
Now these same contemptuous "progressives" get to taste 30 years of a supreme court that does not bow to groupthink liberalism, no matter how much emotional appeal and fake outrage is conjured up.
No matter the outcome of the elections that follow, the one that mattered has already passed and these rulings are but the opening salvo in restoration of logic above emotion.
No one with any sense believes the corrupt US union cronyism and borderline criminality has any virtue. "Progressives" only care because they know their kickbacks will be running thin.
These are the same people who will shed crocodile tears for every illegal alien removed, every criticism of Islam, every hardship for those outside of the west; Yet have nothing but hatred and contempt for every, police officer, military veteran, and countrymen who refuse to agree with their every whim.
You can be sure that anything they are this enraged about, is certainly something that is (to them, unduly) good for those of us who are actually citizens of the USA
5
Carlee, no one can say it better...
As an old union hand, I'm disappointed but not surprised. What's needed now is for unions generally, but public employee unions in particular, to reinforce in practical terms the value of their collective bargaining to their members. If their offer is better wages and fairer working conditions if they can achieve these at the bargaining table, their membership will see the value as will will the "fellow traveling" employees who will seek to hitch a ride on benefits they decide not to pay for. Make union membership real in terms of the impact of collective bargaining and the benefits it yields and union membership will hold its own. The fact that unions have been complaisant for decades is why they're in decline. The country badly needs unions to become more active and aggressive in looking out for their workers and those who need but don't have a collective bargaining resource. Look at the plight of
university adjuncts and how pitifully they're paid for their role in higher ed and it becomes clear how urgent the need really is across the nation.
6
Hand in hand with the roll back of regulations, health and safety protections for workers and benefits – and just in time for all those gleaming new coal mines and 19th century industries the Trump admin has promised. Bet those shouting to bring back coal never imagined revival would come with 19th century regulations, conditions and pay.
3
I can't speak to the constitutional questions, but I have long had my reservations about the ethics behind a public sector union and, even more so, compulsory fees for public sector employees to a union. The value proposition is clear to me when it comes to the private sector; in the public sector, the unions are milking their lone master, the taxpayers.
12
Well next time you don’t like the service at the DMV and no ones fixing the road in front of you house or is mailing your SS check on time - go thank yourself.
That is nonsense! Unions are in place to protect worker’s rights. How do you have two different values for public and private unions?
It sounds to me that your statement only intends to be divisive.
And the service at the DMV is now good? And somebody is re-paving the terrible roads? Gee, I must have missed those happy events. BTW, we in NJ were hit with a special gasoline tax to fix the roads but I believe that money is going to the pensions of the public service employees. Res ipsa loquitor.
For too long, Americans have feared Big Brother, an irresistible force that limits us to multiple choice decisions. Mostly, many saw government as the obvious character to whom to assign that role but, Big Business is way more powerful than any group that ever fed our fears before. Hyperconnected, the power of capital is, like everything else in in today's world, replacing the value of people's one innate property: their time and labor is a buyers market.