SCOTUS Rules Against Big Labor in Janus Case

[AuH20]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/scotus...-in-janus-case

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Tuesday that non-union public-sector workers who are nevertheless represented by a union for bargaining purposes cannot be required to pay union fees. Janus v. AFSCME hinged on the case of Mark Janus, a child-support specialist in Illinois who argued that he should not be forced to pay fees to his union. Existing law, as determined by the 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, states that all employees must pay a fee to account for the benefits of collective bargaining that unions offer

[phill4paul]

I don't know why the concept of being forced to pay a third party in a employer/employee relationship ever made it as far as SCOTUS.

[AuH20]

The left is going nuts on twitter. Citing the ruling as 'racist' and 'pro-corporation'. They can't help themselves.

Why should an unaffiliated individual pay extortion fees into their slush fund?

[phill4paul]

The left is going nuts on twitter. Citing the ruling as 'racist' and 'pro-corporation'. They can't help themselves.

Why should an unaffiliated individual pay extortion fees into their slush fund?

"Pro-corporation," lol. The ruling regarded Government workers. Idiots.

At least now, perhaps, some slack government employees might actually be fired without a Union to protect them.

[AuH20]

[phill4paul]

Useless idiots don't even recognize that when Labor Unions became BIG Labor they left their workers behind for the soft cushion job of middle-man while skimming from the bottom. The workers.

[Occam's Banana]

The useful idiots on the left are upset because they think this is about racism, pro-corporatism, etc. (That's why they are both "useful" and "idiots.")

Members of (the left wing of) the Inner Party are upset about this because it reduces one of the revenue streams to some of their special interest front-men in the Outer Party. And of course, those Outer Party hacks and their hangers-on are cheesed off, too ...

As far as it goes, I suppose this is (or potentially could be) a good thing - or at least, not a bad thing - but some of the expressions of enthusiasm I'm seeing are simply not warranted. Such as:

"We are thrilled to say that all government workers will have their constitutional rights restored!"

Oh. That's nice.

So what about all the people whose constititional rights will be violated by many of those very same government workers (because that's their job)?

Nevermind. I already know the answer. (Chalk up another perk for "Just Us" ...)

John, John, John ... government workers are not taxpayers. They are taxpayees.

Unless the price for the privilege of working for the government is coming out of their own pockets, then they are net tax receivers (regardless of what their tax returns might say).

And of course, this ruling clearly excludes those of us who are net tax payers - you kniow, the ones who actually pay for those government workers' salaries - many of whom are also going to continue to be forced to pay union dues against their will just because they don't happen to work for Uncle Sugar ...



If LJC and Stossel want me to share these particular enthusiasms, they should get back to me when this applies to everyone, and not just the State's lackeys.

[Swordsmyth]

Good! This will hurt the Demoncrats' political machine at every level.

[VIDEODROME]

I we're going this route, I think Temp Agencies should also be looked into.

Many companies decide to unload the burden of HR related paperwork to Temp agencies who people work for and then lose a cut of their pay without even getting a benefit for it. This is another intrusive 3rd party.

[Cleaner44]

More winning. Another reason I am glad that Trump beat Hillary.

[oyarde]

First off , $#@! a bunch of govt workers and crying bolsheviks . Second if all the race mongers and communists are crying about the lost union revenue to be used for the purposes of Evil . Good . This will make my bacon taste better this morning .

[Schifference]

If a union cannot charge dues, why would they represent anyone or even exist?

[oyarde]

If a union cannot charge dues, why would they represent anyone or even exist?

Govt employees should get no union representation . They are public servants paid with tax dollars .They can get union representation in the private sector if they feel the need .

[nobody's_hero]

If a union cannot charge dues, why would they represent anyone or even exist?

If a union cannot survive without making dues mandatory, should it exist?

Anyway, oyarde's right. Taxpayer-funded organizations (fire, police, etc) shouldn't have unions anyway. It's basically a 3rd party telling gov't officials how they can or can't use public tax dollars. If the union has that much control over things like how taxpayer money is spent regarding salaries, benefits, whether or not a public worker can be fired, then basically they are an un-elected entity exercising control over public funds.

[Krugminator2]

T

As far as it goes, I suppose this is (or potentially could be) a good thing - or at least, not a bad thing - but some of the expressions of enthusiasm I'm seeing are simply not warranted. Such as:

LJC and Stossel want me to share these particular enthusiasms, they should get back to me when this applies to everyone, and not just the State's lackeys.

This is a huge decision. The unions use dues to give exclusively to Democrats. This helps cut the flow from workers to Democratic candidates. That is a First Amendment violation. To me this is as good as it gets.

And of course, this ruling clearly excludes those of us who are net tax payers - you kniow, the ones who actually pay for those government workers' salaries

That is a tougher question. Mises and Milton Friedman were against right to work laws. In a free society, a private sector union should be able to compel people to pay union dues. You have the option to not work at the union shop. The obvious problem is unions have special privileges. Employers can't fire workers who want to unionize. So Right to Work laws are a wrong to correct another wrong.

[Anti Federalist]

First off , $#@! a bunch of govt workers and crying bolsheviks . Second if all the race mongers and communists are crying about the lost union revenue to be used for the purposes of Evil . Good . This will make my bacon taste better this morning .

What oyarde said.

[nobody's_hero]

This is a huge decision. The unions use dues to give exclusively to Democrats. This helps cut the flow from workers to Democratic candidates. That is a First Amendment violation. To me this is as good as it gets.



That is a tougher question. Mises and Milton Friedman were against right to work laws. In a free society, a private sector union should be able to compel people to pay union dues. You have the option to not work at the union shop. The obvious problem is unions have special privileges. Employers can't fire workers who want to unionize. So Right to Work laws are a wrong to correct another wrong.

How does that work if I never had a contract with the union as a (potential) employee? Say, I go to work with the railroad. The union calls me up, congratulates me, and tells me I've got 90 days to join the railroad worker's union.

My response: "I'm sorry? Who are you? Were you sitting in during the job interview? I must have missed you being there." My agreement is with the employer. Not with the union. The union has no say in my terms of employment, much less any right to demand anything from me, if I never agreed to anything they put forward.

[Occam's Banana]

This is a huge decision. The unions use dues to give exclusively to Democrats. This helps cut the flow from workers to Democratic candidates.

Which is exactly what I was getting at when I said the following:

Members of (the left wing of) the Inner Party are upset about this because it reduces one of the revenue streams to some of their special interest front-men in the Outer Party. And of course, those Outer Party hacks and their hangers-on are cheesed off, too ...

That is a First Amendment violation. To me this is as good as it gets.

I didn't say it was a bad decision. In fact, I explicitly said it wasn't bad.

That is a tougher question. Mises and Milton Friedman were against right to work laws. In a free society, a private sector union should be able to compel people to pay union dues. You have the option to not work at the union shop. The obvious problem is unions have special privileges. Employers can't fire workers who want to unionize. So Right to Work laws are a wrong to correct another wrong.

None of that has anything to do with what Stossel said. He didn't say any of those things. (If he had, I might not have taken exception.)

My complaint is that Stossel characterizes this as somehow being a blow in defense of (some) taxpayers qua taxpayers. It isn't and they aren't.

[Swordsmyth]

If a union cannot charge dues, why would they represent anyone or even exist?

They can charge dues, they just can't force people to join and pay them.

[Swordsmyth]

Seven California teachers have filed a class action to claw back union fees that were collected, they claim, in violation of their constitutional rights.

The suit, filed on Monday in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, is among the first filed since the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 27 decision in Janus v. AFSCME.

“The lawsuit we filed is a refund of the fees that were illegally extracted,” said John Bursch of Bursch Law in Grand Rapids, Michigan, who along with the Clark Hill law firm filed the class action on behalf of California’s public school teachers. He said 20 other lawsuits across the country seek similar refunds—although some of those cases predate the Janus decision.

More at: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/calif...120131543.html

[nobody's_hero]

Seven California teachers have filed a class action to claw back union fees that were collected, they claim, in violation of their constitutional rights.

The suit, filed on Monday in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, is among the first filed since the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 27 decision in Janus v. AFSCME.

“The lawsuit we filed is a refund of the fees that were illegally extracted,” said John Bursch of Bursch Law in Grand Rapids, Michigan, who along with the Clark Hill law firm filed the class action on behalf of California’s public school teachers. He said 20 other lawsuits across the country seek similar refunds—although some of those cases predate the Janus decision.

More at: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/calif...120131543.html

Oooooh. Could get interesting. Unfortunately they probably won't side with them since it would be retroactive.

[phill4paul]

So, the Unions, ever the defender of the working class, have hit on a novel way to re-coup their loss. Just take a percentage of every wage negotiation from the government. And, thus, the workers.

New York’s most senior Democratic lawmaker is proposing an end-run around a US Supreme Court ruling that could cost the state’s powerful public-employee unions more than $100 million a year.

Assemblyman Richard Gottfried (D-Manhattan), a longtime labor ally, plans to introduce legislation that would allow unions to include collective-bargaining costs in their contracts with government agencies to replace the mandatory fees banned under last month’s Janus v. *AFSCME ruling.

“I would call it a workaround,” said Gottfried, who has served for 50 years in Albany. “I don’t think there’s a lot of logic to the Janus decision to start with, but New York state — in our Constitution and law — has long recognized that public employees have the right to collectively bargain.”

The Supreme Court declared last month that fees collected from non-union members in lieu of dues violated their First Amendment’s protections against forced speech. Unions had argued that all employees should help cover the costs of contract negotiations since all employees are covered by the contract.

Dues from union members were not impacted by the ruling.

Under the arrangement proposed by Gottfried, unions would be able to trade a portion of a wage increase to pay for collective-bargaining costs.

Gottfried outlined the plan in a memo to other state lawmakers that was leaked to the Empire Center, which assailed the proposal.

“It would be terrible policy on a number of levels,” said Ken Girardin, a policy analyst at the conservative think tank in Albany. “You could be talking about $400, $500, $600 per worker per year.

Supreme Court ruling could cost NY unions $112M a year
“It’s going to come out of someone’s pockets and be handed over to the union,” he added. “The practice would be indefensible.”

Girardin said politically powerful unions and their allies in state government would play numbers games that would ultimately stick the taxpayers with the bargaining tab without sacrificing wage hikes.

https://nypost.com/2018/07/04/dem-la...site%20buttons

[CaptUSA]

So, the Unions, ever the defender of the working class, have hit on a novel way to re-coup their loss. Just take a percentage of every wage negotiation from the government. And, thus, the workers.

Oh, holy hell! No chance for corruption there! This would just codify it!

[brushfire]

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Tuesday that non-union public-sector workers who are nevertheless represented by a union for bargaining purposes cannot be required to pay union fees. Janus v. AFSCME hinged on the case of Mark Janus, a child-support specialist in Illinois who argued that he should not be forced to pay fees to his union. Existing law, as determined by the 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, states that all employees must pay a fee to account for the benefits of collective bargaining that unions offer

Does this precedent carry over into FICA? Why should my wages be garnished for benefits that I've not agreed to receive? I should be able to opt out, right? How about all income tax for that matter?

[Swordsmyth]

The fallout from the Supreme Court’s landmark Janus ruling continued as Washington state workers filed suit to recover their lost wages from forced unionism.
Several home health aides are suing Service Employees International Union Local 775 and the state to recover money deducted from Medicaid reimbursements designed to fund the care of disabled or elderly people. The state government automatically sent more than 3 percent of the provider payments to the union, despite the fact that workers never agreed to become members. The practice, according to the suit, violates both the U.S. and state constitutions.
“Plaintiffs and class members are not union members and never consented for the union or the state to withdraw union dues or dues equivalent fees from their wages, yet the state deducted such fees from their pay,” the suit says. “Defendants conspired to deprive Plaintiffs and class members of their First Amendment rights by deducting union fees from their wages without their clear, prior, affirmative consent.”

More at: http://freebeacon.com/issues/big-lab...s-action-suit/

[Swordsmyth]

Several Washington state employees are suing for the right to break ties with their union, claiming the Supreme Court's landmark Janus decision should allow them to cancel their membership immediately.
That June ruling said state government workers could not be forced to pay so-called “fair share” fees to support collective bargaining and other union activities. The decision delivered a blow to public-employee unions.
But the lawsuit filed Thursday, if successful, could point to further repercussions.
The six plaintiffs have all attempted to leave the Washington Federation of State Employees (WFSE) since the Supreme Court decision, but say they've been told they have to wait until an “escape period” next year.
The government agency employees signed membership agreements – meaning they were part of a union as opposed to nonmembers forced to pay fees – but the lawsuit said the employees did so when “the right to not fund union advocacy was yet to be recognized.” Before the Supreme Court ruling, Washington was one state where certain public employees were required to pay agency fees.


“Neither an agency fee nor any other payment to the union may be deducted from a nonmember’s wages, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay,” Justice Samuel Alito said in writing the majority opinion.
The Freedom Foundation, the conservative Washington-based think tank that filed the suit on behalf of the employees, argues union membership cards signed before that decision should now be invalidated because “it’s impossible for a worker to have knowingly waived a right that wasn’t recognized by the court until the Janus ruling was issued.” The workers argue they only joined because they presumed they'd have to pay fees anyway or were given bad information.


The nonprofit also alleges that unions “pressured” employees to join or misled workers to believe membership was required as opposed to just paying the reduced fee.
“I just want what’s right and fair, and the way the union has treated me since the Janus decision is not right, nor fair,” plaintiff Mike Stone, who works in the state’s Department of Social and Health Services, told Fox News. “WFSE doesn’t share my views or my values. I don’t want my money being used to support an organization I disagree with.”


The agreements only allow for a short window (between 10 and 20 days, according to the suit) for employees to resign from the union once a year. Otherwise, deductions will automatically renew annually.
Another plaintiff, who wished only to be identified as Ms. Torres, said she was never told exactly what she was signing and didn’t realize she wasn’t going to be allowed to resign from the union at any time.
“The union organizer simply said if we were already a member we needed to sign their new form,” she told Fox News in a statement. “It’s totally unethical for the union to trick state workers to sign away their constitutional rights and then turn around and tell you that you cannot opt out because you signed a contract.”

More at: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...ape-union.html

[Swordsmyth]

Take Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, for example, who recently told all affected employees that Janus decision essentially does not mean anything. He wrote: “In other words, the decision in Janus does not alter any pre-existing obligation of a public employer to deduct dues from union members.”
That is patent nonsense. If that really was the case, why would the union leadership be so upset?
The reality is that the Janus ruling articulated a right for employees that had long been violated and created the new opt-in test that must be met before a governmental body can transfer part of an employee’s pay to a union.
The Supreme Court held that the opt-in must be “freely given” and shown by “clear and compelling” evidence. It said that opt-in “cannot be presumed.” This is new territory for all states and for all employees of state and local governments, including school districts.
Maryland Attorney General Frosh – and similarly minded state leaders in New Jersey, Rhode Island and a host of other states advancing these nullification strategies – may follow that strategy to the bitter end.

More at: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/...get-break.html