Public Employee Unions Might Be Hurt After Supreme Court Case

Public Employee Unions Might Be Hurt After Supreme Court Case

Public Employee Unions Might Be Hurt After Supreme Court Case

AFSCME claims it's using my money to represent me in bargaining with the state, but I don't agree with what the union stands for, and I don't believe it is working for the good of IL government.

Liberal justices asked questions indicating support for maintaining the fees.

They are particularly afraid of what happened in Wisconsin, which scrapped public employee collective bargaining in 2011. Unions argue that their political activity is separate from negotiating contracts.

"We know that an attack on any one union is an attack on every union, and an attack on any worker's right to organize is an attack on every worker's right to organize", Lamb said. Justice Kennedy asked David Frederick, the attorney for AFSCME.

"Isn't that the end of this case?".

Dueling groups of protesters gathered outside the white marble courthouse ahead of the scheduled one-hour argument.

"I'm not against unions", said the employee, 65-year-old Mark Janus, who is represented by American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31.

In particular, Justice Stephen Breyer appeared to be seeking a compromise path - offered up by IL - that would allow a more limited and "very firm line", as Franklin put it, on what types of expenses could be assessed against nonmembers through union fees.

His case, which is being backed by the anti-union National Right to Work Foundation, is part of a decades-long offensive against labor representation by conservative organizations.

Depriving unions of agency fees could undermine their ability to spend in political races.

More news: Arizona Diamondbacks Add Jarrod Dyson and Steven Souza Jr

The court on Monday heard oral arguments in the case of Janus vs. AFSCME.

The court split 4-4 the last time it considered the issue in 2016.

Scalia's replacement, Justice Neil Gorsuch, is expected to side with Janus.

Glenn Smith, professor of Constitutional and Public Law at California Western School of Law, spoke about the case on Good Morning San Diego.

And this time, IL state employee Mark Janus is arguing that the fees public-sector unions collect from nonmembers to cover the cost of actions that help all employees are coerced speech that violates his First Amendment rights.

The unions argue that so-called fair share fees pay for collective bargaining and other work the union does on behalf of all employees, not just its members.

More than a hundred people loudly demonstrated outside the courthouse.

The plaintiff in this case is Mark Janus, a child support specialist for state government in IL. "Or, for that matter, my fellow union members who face the threat of layoffs or their pension funds someday running dry?" The rationale is that if workers could opt out of any payments, those doing so would be "free riders": They would reap the pay and conditions the union negotiates - while paying members bear the union's costs. Or there may be 5 votes to strike down agency fees entirely.

Not being able to collect agency fees, that's a big problem for teachers, said OFT's Cropper.

Federal employee unions can not collect agency fees.

Related news