General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsUnions Should Brace Themselves for a Major Supreme Court Loss
It's official: The Supreme Court will wait until Monday, the final day of the current term, to issue its decision in Harris v. Quinn. As I explained in May, Harris is a blockbuster case that could, in a worst-case scenario, wipe public-employee unions such as SEIU andAFSCME off the map. And the chances of a damaging decision in Harris just increasedhere's why.
Heading into Thursday, the Supreme Court hadHarris and three other cases left to decide. The justices chose to issue their opinions concerning presidential recess appointmentsNoel Canning v. National Labor Relations Board) and so-called buffer zones keeping protesters at a distance from abortion clinics (McCullen v. Coakley). Justice Stephen Breyer, a liberal member of the court, wrote the Canningopinion; Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, took the lead in McCullen.
This makes it more likely that Justice Samuel Alito, who we've yet to hear much from, will write the opinion in Harris, which points to bad news for public-employee unions. "There's almost no question [Justice] Alito has this opinion unless he lost his majority along way,"tweets Rick Hasen, a University of California-Irvine law professor. "Anti-union is his signature issue."
Labor officials can only hope Hasen is wrong. Alito is strongly anti-union. In the 2012 caseKnox v. SEIU, Alito essentially invited labor's foes to challenge the basic model of public-employee unionism, in which non-union employees can be made to pay dues to a union for bargaining on their behalf, representing them in grievance issues, etc. Harris makes such a challenge; it's what Alito asked for.
Unions like to call those non-member payments "fair share" dues. If it's the union's job, they reason, to represent all members and nonmembers in a unionized workplace, then all those workers should pay their fair share for that representation. Conservativesand Alitosay fair-share fees violate the First Amendment rights of non-union workers.
The outcome in Harris could cut a number of ways. The Supreme Court could uphold the lower court's decision dismissing the suita big union victory. It could strike down fair share feesthe equivalent of Congress passing a national right-to-work bill. (Right-to-work laws ban unions from collecting those fair-share fees from non-members.) Public-employee unions would survive that decision, but it would be a blow. The court could also effectively enact right-to-work nationwide and kneecap a union's ability to exclusively represent employees in a unionized workplace. That would be catastrophic for public-employee unions.
If there's any judge who might go that far, it would be Samuel Alito.
http://m.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/06/samuel-alito-harris-quinn-supreme-court-union
trublu992
(489 posts)YarnAddict
(1,850 posts)But, as I understand it, this involves people who are caring for a disabled relative, and their responsibility to pay union dues. Personally, I don't think they should have to. If they are caring for a disabled child, or parent, why should they pay dues? What is the benefit to them? Wondering if I'mm seeing this the right way.
senseandsensibility
(16,933 posts)Could you explain?
YarnAddict
(1,850 posts)I haven't followed this closely. But, IIRC, this involved someone who was caring for a disabled child, or parent, or something, and was expected to pay union dues, because he or she was a home healthcare provider. In this case, the little bit of $$$ that they got for caring was reduced by having to pay union dues. Union membership did not benefit them at all, and all it did was take much needed money out of their pocket.
Is this the essence of this case, or am I way off base?
senseandsensibility
(16,933 posts)You might be right, but I think this is just a pretext for trying to weaken public sector unions. If a situation like the one you describe exists, it could be remedied without such drastic measures. Anyway, I hope the OP chimes in.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)The basic facts are this: Medicare has a program where relatives of disabled folks get a fixed stipend (lets say $750 a month but I do not recall the exact amount) to take care of the disabled. This is much cheaper than institutionalization and the disabled get care from those who love them the most. A great government win-win program that no one outside of an Ayn Rand nutter would argue.
Then comes Blago.
Remember Blago went to jail for selling OObama's senate seat? He was doing this because he was brokish, hated being governor (he had no power) and was looking to get set up for after he was governor. So he makes a deal with the SEIU to make these home health care workers state workers so SEIU can grab their dues, do nothing for them (no contracts to negociate, no greivances) and then Blago gets a cushy job after he leaves office.
Some workers cry foul, as well they should since they are getting screwed, some right wing lawyers got ahold of them and the rest is history.
Fuck you, Blago, from the bottom of my heart.
Omaha Steve
(99,506 posts)I was going to post and checked the title first. I do miss a few things on the DU.
Thanks again. K&R!
OS