SCOTUS deals a blow to Unions..

[Dumpstick]

People seem to forget.
Back in the 30s the unions agreed to represent ALL workers in a shop, not just union workers. The unions agreed to this in exchange for being the only "workers representative" at the table with management.
Also, the union thought (probably correctly) that non-union workers would join, when the benefits of union membership became apparent.

Now that the benefit of union membership is mostly non-existent, especially for right-leaning voters, the unions are scratching and clawing to retain any money they can get. If that means forcibly deducting money from paychecks, they will do it.

 

[Dave70968]

Alright, I've had a chance to skim the opinion. I'll read it in detail later, but there's something critical in there that we haven't addressed:

This ruling is limited to public-sector unions.

That is a vital distinction, and it explains why this is a First Amendment case. From the syllabus: "Nor does the union speech at issue cover only matters of private concern, which the State may also generally regulate under Pickering. To the contrary, union speech covers critically important and public matters such as the State’s budget crisis, taxes, and collective bargaining issues related to education, child welfare, healthcare, and minority rights" (slip opinion* at 3). This becomes a matter of "compelled speech," which is constitutionally suspect. The opinion also addresses the "free rider" problem, the growth of public-sector unions even as private-sector unions have declined, and the erosion of the basis for the prior opinion.

It's also worth noting that public-sector unions are unique in that they exclude a critical party from the negotiations. In the private sector, the owners--the people who are ultimately writing the cheques--are represented, either directly or through their chosen management, management which is subject to a shareholder election and can be replaced relatively easily. In a public-sector union, the people writing the cheques--the taxpayers--really aren't represented. Sure, we have our elected officials, but they're rarely the ones making salary and benefits decisions, and even where they have a hand in it, they're not nearly so accountable to the taxpayers as the Board is to the shareholders. Even FDR was opposed to public-sector unions, and for that very reason.

More analysis when I've had a chance to read it in detail. I've also heard some interesting bits about Trump v. Hawaii, and if what I've heard is correct, it could be very useful for a good many things later.

* Case citations: Consider the Heller case; you'll see me cite it as District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). The 554 U.S. 570 is the citation; it refers to Volume 554 of the United States Reports, page 570. It takes several years for the folks at West Publishing to get new opinions into the reporters. Slip opinions are the opinion as published by the Court before they're properly integrated to the reporter system. You can get them at http://www.supremecourt.gov. The slip opinion for this case is at Janus v. State, County, and Municipal Employees (16-1466), https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf (the little gavel icon). You can also get a transcript and a recording of the oral arguments (the dogeared page and speaker, respectively).

 

[TerryMiller]

Dave,

I knew that it dealt with "public" unions, but can this be something of a precedent towards a case involving "private" unions?

 

[Dave70968]

Dave,

I knew that it dealt with "public" unions, but can this be something of a precedent towards a case involving "private" unions?

Not really. This turned on a First Amendment issue, and the First Amendment doesn't bind private organizations, only governments.

I'll have a full analysis up later, or perhaps tomorrow morning.

 

[pritch]

Forgive the loose version of the ruling, but under Beck, non-union members can opt out of that portion of union dues that go toward political activities.

 

[Dave70968]

Forgive the loose version of the ruling, but under Beck, non-union members can opt out of that portion of union dues that go toward political activities.

In the case of public-sector unions, even salary negotiations have a political component. Read the ruling, or at least the syllabus; I linked it above.

 

[pritch]

Agreed. I made reference to Beck because Terry inquired about private unions.

 

[dennishoddy]

One of the side benefits of this is that the unions took money and typically donated part of the union dues to liberal politicians.
Conservative members and independants didn't want their money going to politicians and agenda's that they didn't support.
Great decision by SCOTUS.