Reply to Thread

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dave70968" data-source="post: 3128959" data-attributes="member: 13624">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 <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov" target="_blank">http://www.supremecourt.gov</a>.  The slip opinion for this case is at Janus v. State, County, and Municipal Employees (16-1466), <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf</a> (the little gavel icon).  You can also get a transcript and a recording of the oral arguments (the dogeared page and speaker, respectively).</blockquote>

Verification