So they say via a liberal blog, in re: Harris v. Quinn, a case that’s expected to be ruled on in two days (I figure it’s good timing, since this could also serve as a discussion of the ruling when it’s finally handed down).
What are they worried about?
What are your thoughts on the case and the issue at hand in it, not to mention how they relate to union ability to operate in general?
I would rule against allowing compulsory agency fees to exist. It seems like a de facto method of forcing people to join the union. No individual union member has any inherent legal right to demand money from people in this manner, and neither should they in aggregate.
And frankly, it’s rather obscene that Harris’s own money is likely being used by the union to fight for this power to take more of her money without her consent.
Agreed.
Oh well, I guess slavery can’t have been all that bad.
In the case of the private sector, I could see ruling for the unions. In the public sector, no way, because there is no collective bargaining. It is, as the plaintiffs say, political advocacy, not bargaining. Bargaining requires both sides to be representing the interests of who they represent. The union does, the state does not. For one of the two major parties, in fact, they also represent the interest of the union. So it is more accurate to call what public sector unions do political advocacy, and forced political advocacy does violate the 1st amendment.
Good. Maybe afterwards I can try to get the Union to give me back the thousands of dollars they’ve forcefully taken in dues over the years.
If the Democratic party can’t survive without forcing people to pay money to support them, then I say: Good Riddance!
But then, we’re talking about a “liberal blog”, so it should come as no surprise that we are encountering hyperbole. Not quite as bad a hyperbole as hinting that this decision will result in slavery, but hyperbole none the less.
As far as the specifics in this case, it’s almost insane because the case at hand is rather small, but the possible consequences so big. In general, I do not believe that forced group-membership is permissible except in very specific cases, and unions usually aren’t.
However, what I notice about this case is that the union involved made a huge strategic error, probably because they were focused on the .short-term tactical win. I’d suggest it almost inevitable that the group they were now forcibly taking money from would protest furiously and that, at the bare minimum, it might be more trouble than it was worth. The problem is that the extension in this case is extremely far-reaching. “Home Health Workers” appears to cover people who, well, aren’t really being paid per se. It’s far cheaper for the state to have family or friends help take care of people with certain disabilities, but they aren’t really employees in any material sense and don’t receive those kinds of benefits as far as I can determine.
Moreover, it’s hard to imagine what “benefit” the union could possible have even in theory for someone as distanced from the state government as a homecare worker in general. The arrangement is pretty clearly to the advantage of the union (and any workers on the “inside”), but not to the purported beneficiaries of the extension. That’s going to be a tough nut to swallow for most judges.
If the case is upheld on those grounds, however - and I can easily see the court doing so - it may require that homecare workers receive some kind of other benefit. Or they may strike the State of Illinois down on another reasoning. This isn’t one I’d care to place a wager on the outcome.
There’s collective bargaining in public sector unions. In fact, in New York, not long after Andrew Cuomo got elected, he got into a big fight with public employee unions (which he pretty much won) over contract negotiations.
In Wisconsin, Scott Walker and the legislature raised this major controversy when they got rid of the right of public sector employees to collectively bargain.
Unions are already in a death spiral … the more they gain, the more jobs sent overseas.
But that’s not the case here. Public employees aren’t bargaining with “management”, they’re bargaining with the government. Private unions gain what shareholders lose, public unions gain what is to the government immaterial. This works fine … [giggle] … if the government is actually seeking the people’s … [chorkle] … best interest … [LOL] … and we all know they do … [falls out of chair laughing so hard].
This ThinkProgress article linked to by HiffPost references SCOTUSBlog’s Tom Goldstein and his tracking of which justices have written opinions for cases heard within a particular month. The workload is spread remarkably evenly. Only one justice, Alito, has not yet released an opinion for a a case heard in the month of January as was the Harris case.
If Alito truly is writing the Harris case then that probably is not good news for the unions. Alito is also the justice with the fewest released authored opinions for this session, at 6. All others have written 7 or 8. Good bet he is writing Harris or possibly…
Notably, the only other outstanding case is the Hobby Lobby/Conestoga Wood combined case which was heard in March. Only Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia and Alito have not released an opinion of a case argued in March. Using that logic, the best Obamacare supporters could hope for would be a majority opinion written by Kennedy, with possibly Roberts in a close second.
Given Scalia and Kennedy have already authored 8 opinions, I’m guessing its Roberts and Alito with majority/minority opinions respectively on Hobby Lobby. that would be good news for the administration. That would push Roberts to 8 opinions this term, with all the other justices at 8 or 7 (assuming Alito authors Harris).
That’s actually one of the main points made in the article linked to in the OP.
Well, most of what you’re addressing is a paraphrase/quote from union officials, so in that case, the blog that quotes them doesn’t matter a lot.
I am surprised that only one liberal’s popped up so far, tho’.
The US still has unions?
And what’s wrong with that?
That is simply the nature of test cases. There is no possible court case with “Labor” and “Management” or “Working Class” and “Ruling Class” or “Integrationists” and “Segregationists” as parties, all cases are brought by some particular individual or organization who has standing to sue over some particular claim or wrong; but some such cases set precedents with much wider implications.
You know all that rhetoric about wage slavery and the disparity of power in the employer-employee relationship? Why the fuck would it be a good thing to double up on that by granting the same power to ruin your day to the union as well as to your boss? At least your employer only has that power because he’s offering you so much money that you don’t want to turn him down. The union’s power in this situation only comes from their parasitic relationship with your employer - that you can’t have the things you want - your job and your pay packet - without them getting their cut.
The difference is that the worker has a vote in the union and none in management.
A narrow ruling (perhaps a cop-out) could just focus on whether Harris et al are, in fact, state employees. But that doesn’t appear to be what they’re actually arguing.
Keep “helping”. I’m sure you’re doing the unions a big favor.
Actually the case at point is talking about workers who are not members of the union but are objecting to paying union agency fees. These workers do not get to vote in union elections or participate in union matters.
Practically, unless the worker is employed at the time of a vote to unionize or decertify the union, that worker gets no vote at all. He just gets a union demanding money on matters the employee had no say in at all.