Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy ‘Harris v. Quinn’ Has Labor Very, Very Nervous
http://www.thenation.com/article/179033/why-harris-v-quinn-has-labor-very-very-nervousSometime soon, certainly by the late-June conclusion of its present term, the Supreme Court will tell us its decision in Harris v. Quinn, arguably the most important labor law case the Court has considered in decades. Harris has already generated a great deal of attention and worry in labor circles, and nearly as much enthusiasm and celebration in pro-business onesreflected in the extraordinary number of friend-of-the-court briefs filed by advocates on both sides. The case threatens the existence of the agency shop, a bedrock institution in American labor relationsone relied on in the most successful recent union organizing, and that is decisive to the health of public sector unions. Heres what Harris is about.
In American labor law, a union wins the right to be the exclusive collective bargaining representative for workers in a particular unit by demonstrating its support by a majority of the workers in the unit. But the law also imposes a duty with this right. The union must represent all workers, union members and nonunion employees alike, when it negotiates and administers collective bargaining agreements. Thus it is theoretically possible for nonunion employees to capture the benefits of collective bargaining won by their union colleagues (often at considerable expense) but pay nothing for it.
Unions typically seek to limit this free-rider problem by negotiating clauses requiring all unit employees to pay their fair share of the unions costs for union members, this is done through dues; for nonunion employees, by some calculated agency fee. Along with capturing needed resources, these clauses send a cultural message: if not of solidarity then at least distaste for free-riders.
The Supreme Court has long recognized the legitimacy of such fair-share/agency-shop agreements, in the private as well as the public sector, within limits. The limits are that unions may compel nonunion employee contributions only for the costs of negotiating and administering collective bargaining agreements. The costs of all other union activitynew organizing, lobbying, public education, elections, etc.are deemed nonchargeable, meaning that they are paid by nonunion employees at their discretion.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 676 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (4)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why ‘Harris v. Quinn’ Has Labor Very, Very Nervous (Original Post)
xchrom
Mar 2014
OP
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)1. There is a middle ground on this one
The plaintiff in this case is not a traditional public employee like a teacher or meter maid. She is the mother of a disabled child. There is a program in Illinois that relatives of disabled folks can get paid by the state to look after their disabled relatives. No fica is taken out, and many make less than minimum wage.
Blago by executive order unionize these relatives because he wanted to get money from the SEIU. Dues are deducted from these folks capped reimbursements. It was a corrupt deal and these folks were compelled to join.
These folks a should be allowed to opt out. Leave the rest the same
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)2. "right to work" nation?
Does not sound good to me.