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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

TexasTowelie

(111,314 posts)
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 02:42 AM Jun 2014

Harris v. Quinn: Will the Supreme Court Abolish Public Sector Unions on Monday?

Mainstream accounts of American history are almost completely devoid of the brutal efforts to suppress the organization of workers to gain basic rights, like workplace safety, fair wages, and limits on the length of the workday. Here are some examples of the ferocity of union-breaking efforts:

One of the first great strike waves of this country occured on the railways in 1877; in that strike, US federal troops repeatedly opened fire on strikers battling with the monopolistic railways, killing twelve people in Baltimore, killing twenty-five in Pittsburg, and using troops throughout the country to break the strike. Local police in Pittsburg had actually supported the strikers because public opinion so supported the strike, but President Hayes made sure federal troops were used to defend the railroad monopolies.

In July of 1892, Carnegie Steel declared war on the Amalgamated union of iron, steel and tin workers as they went on strike. A private Pinkerton army marched against the union’s position armed with Winchester rifles–seven strikers died and three Pinkertons died from return fire…

Unions found that if they struck, the government would issue an injunction and members would be jailed; if they called for a boycott, they’d be bankrupted by the courts* or threatened with imprisonment. At the same time, attempts by unions to use legislation such as limits to the working day or minimum-wage laws were voided by the courts (until 1937 and the New Deal). Unions found that whether through the ballot, through a strike, or through speech and boycotts–the employers and government would attack them.

In 1912, a massive strike in the wool mills of Lawrence, MA showed where employer violence overstepped its bounds and backfired. Despite the deployment of the militia and the arrest of strike leaders, the company could not break the strike. In order to survive economically, unionists planned to send their children to supporters in other states. The company and its supporters declared that no children would be allowed to leave the city. When the strike committee undertook to take the children to the railway station, the police and militia surrounded the station, the police closed in and began to beat mothers and children mericilessly. Despite the jailing of 296 strikers, public protest and continued resistance forced the company to raise wages although the union was never recognized.

Possibly the most bloody attack on unionists was Ludlow, Colorado in 1913 where J.D. Rockefeller and his Colorado Fuel and Iron Company had state militia and hired special deputies attack and try to crush coal miners there. Conflict ranged for months until the militia opened machine-fire on a tent city of mineworkers family and then soaked tents in oil and put them to the torch. Women and children huddled in pits to escape the falmes; in one, eleven children and two women were found burned to death at the hands of the militia.


-snip-

So what’s Harris v. Quinn?

I’m glad you asked. LA Times:

(Harris vs. Quinn) asks whether a state may compel even those public employees who elect not to join a union to pay fees to the union, since they benefit from the collective bargaining agreements it negotiates.

A “yes” answer would compromise the rights of workers to disassociate themselves from a union, rights grounded in the freedoms of speech and association. A “no” answer would compromise the rights of workers to form a union that can robustly defend their most fundamental interests.

So, will the Roberts Court rule in favor of free-rider public employees and weakening public sector unions? I’m guessing yes (the rational decision on cell phone search — “Get a warrant” — being a sop to cellphone users in the political and professional classes). But perhaps I’m too cynical. We can hope that the Court doesn’t double down, especially if they want elders to be taken care of by home health workers who are treated like humans instead of slaves. Public News Service:

Harris vs. Quinn could stop home-care workers and child-care providers from joining public-sector unions that automatically include employees in paying dues and enjoying contract benefits.

Millions of women who help people raise children and care for aging parents deserve the ability to join a union and make progress on issues such as pay equity, said Jennifer Munt, spokeswoman for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. …

“When women join unions, we gain a voice on the job,” she said. “Many of these jobs pay too little, and they don’t provide women with a path out of poverty so they can support their own families.”

Munt said nearly 60 percent of women would make more if they were paid the same as men, and the overall poverty rate would be cut in half as a result. She said she believes union representation is key for that to happen.

“Public-sector unions have shown,” she said, “that if women enjoy collective-bargaining rights and have a strong voice in the workplace, the inequalities of the past begin to fade away.”


But we’re not talking just home-care workers. We’re talking all public sector unions. PR Watch:

Joel Rogers, a professor of law and sociology at the University of Wisconsin, calls it “the most important labor law case the court has considered in decades.”

This is because when the Supreme Court decided to take on the case, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation dramatically expanded the scope of the case beyond the home health care workers to include all public sector workers, from teachers and firefighters to sanitation workers to librarians. If the court follows National Right to Work’s lead, every state in the country would essentially turn into an anti-union “right to work” state, which would be a significant blow to public sector unions’ collective bargaining efforts and also complicate thousands of existing contracts between organized workers and municipalities, cities, counties, and states across the country.


More at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/06/harris-v-quinn-will-supreme-court-abolish-public-sector-unions-monday.html#comment-2260820 .

Cross-posted in the Labor Movement Group.
4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Harris v. Quinn: Will the Supreme Court Abolish Public Sector Unions on Monday? (Original Post) TexasTowelie Jun 2014 OP
We will become a 3rd world country quicker then we are already headed newfie11 Jun 2014 #1
This is stressing me out. Starry Messenger Jun 2014 #2
It is a conservative assault on progressive values. yallerdawg Jun 2014 #3
K&R! Omaha Steve Jul 2014 #4

newfie11

(8,159 posts)
1. We will become a 3rd world country quicker then we are already headed
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 06:22 AM
Jun 2014

I've lived in right to work states and sheeple just accept the low salaries.

This will be a huge mistake and people need to wake up to what is happening.

Starry Messenger

(32,342 posts)
2. This is stressing me out.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 09:57 AM
Jun 2014

People here fighting over which Dem they want for President can kiss any of those hopes goodbye. We won't be fighting over Hillary, we'll be hoping President Cruz doesn't make lunch illegal.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
3. It is a conservative assault on progressive values.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 01:23 PM
Jun 2014

This is an assault on recognized human rights for political gain.

It will go on until we vote them out or get the pitchforks!

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Socialist Progressives»Harris v. Quinn: Will the...