Group appeals mandatory union fees to Supreme Court

[Omaha Steve]

Source: LA Times

By DAVID G. SAVAGE

Seeing an opening to weaken public-sector unions, a conservative group is asking the Supreme Court to strike down laws in California, Illinois and about 20 other states that require teachers and other government employees to pay union fees, even if they are personally opposed.

Suing on behalf of an Orange County elementary school teacher, attorney Michael Carvin called the case "a challenge to the largest regime of state-compelled speech for public employees in the nation," according to his appeal filed at the high court last week.

Carvin, a former Reagan administration attorney, also launched the pending lawsuit against President Obama's healthcare law, which could unravel the insurance subsidies for about 5 million Americans who receive coverage through the federally run exchange. That case will be heard March 4.

His latest case targets the California Teachers Assn. and the National Education Assn. Plaintiff Rebecca Friedrichs and several other California teachers say they object to paying about $650 a year to the union.

FULL story at link.

http://www.trbimg.com/img-54cdb9a3/turbine/la-alito-la0004742186-20060912/750/750x422

Twice in the last three years, Justice Samuel Alito has written opinions dealing defeats to public unions. Above, Alito at the Reagan library in Simi Valley. (Lawrence K. Ho, Los Angeles Times)


Read more: http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-0201-court-teachers-union-20150201-story.html

---

Also see this post in GD about the fair share issue: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6155353

[cstanleytech]

1. So wait they are hired in and knew they had to be part of a union but now want out?

Doesnt pass the smell test.

[Turbineguy]

2. Maybe they can pass on

all those awful benefits the Union negotiated for them as well.

[Freddie]

3. To paraphrase our Founding Fathers

Getting all the benefits your union has worked hard to get for you, without having to contribute towards it, is "representation without taxation."

[bigdarryl]

4. Didn't the Court already ruled on this

That members don't have to pay union dues

[Android3.14]

5. Saw that one coming

This will end in a defeat for unions. The unions will survive, hopefully with a better strategy that addresses core issues with laborers such as a living wage, but forcing people to join against their will only instills resentment and was a supremely bad strategy on their part.

[Omaha Steve]

8. So if they don't want to pay dues it would be fair to pay them non-union wages and non benefits?

Isn't fair a two way street?

And the union HAS to represent them if they get in trouble by law.


Union members earn better wages and benefits than workers who aren’t union members. On average, union workers’ wages are 27 percent higher than their nonunion counterparts.

Unionized workers are 60 percent more likely to have employer-provided pensions.

More than 79 percent of union workers have jobs that provide health insurance benefits, but less than half of nonunion workers do. Unions help employers create a more stable, productive workforce—where workers have a say in improving their jobs.

Unions help bring workers out of poverty and into the middle class. In fact, in states where workers don’t have union rights, workers’ incomes are lower.

[Android3.14]

9. Of course

As I have repeated, ad nauseum, the issue is not the value/benefit/overall awesomeness of unions. It is the ill-considered effort to force people to join against their will.

If a worker refuses to join the union and the company decides to pay him or her less, then that is the consequence of the worker's decision.

The Supreme Court will uphold this right-to-work crap because it is wrong at so many levels, from legal to public relations. It's so blatant in its stupidity that I would be unsurprised if anti-union strategists were the ones who handed out the rope in order for unions to hang themselves by promoting the policy.

You can see it in the self-righteous outrage here. "Those workers who don't join are gaining from our efforts and that means they are bad people. Bad worker! Bad! We will have to force you to join so that you will be a good worker."

What's weird to me is that unions keep trying to push this like they have a strong argument. Then, when anyone points out the argument is as empty as Dick Cheney's soul, they just double down, throw in some insults and insist they are right because, you know, unions are good and stuff.

[Omaha Steve]

10. That is illegal!!!

If a worker refuses to join the union and the company decides to pay him or her less, then that is the consequence of the worker's decision

All workers union and non-union are covered under the contract. They get the same pay and benefits without paying dues. So the union members have to pay more to cover the costs incurred by the non-union workers. They are usually doing it simply because they are cheap skates.

[Android3.14]

11. No.

It is not all workers, but only the workers who accept the contract.

If a worker accepts the union-negotiated contract, then the union is obligated by law to honor it for all workers under that contract, including non-union workers. If the worker is under a separate contract, then all bets are off.

Since when is being a cheapskate illegal? Sure it's rude, but is it reason to compel people to join/support groups against their will?

This is like a public restroom at a park. Even though everyone benefits from the restroom, only members of the community are paying for it.

This is like a person showing up at a potluck with a guest who doesn't have a dish to contribute.

[Omaha Steve]

12. Your wrong

By separate contract it might be management. But a classification of say semi-skilled in the bargaining unit can't op-out for his own. It is the law. Any workplace that breaks that can be charged by a worker OR the union at the NLRB. State, County, municipal workers, teachers, public utility workers, etc would be different because they fall under state law.

[Android3.14]

13. Too much jargon or something

Could you rephrase that? I just heard a whoosh.

[Omaha Steve]

14. OK

Workers covered by the contract can't op-out. A separate contract would be management etc. There is no op-out of a contract on shops covered by the NLRB.

[Android3.14]

15. Your saying that, by state or federal law, everyone a company employs must accept a union contract?

I'd like to see some proof of that.

I'd bet a nickel that the union insists with the employer that they represent all workers, rather than only union workers.

This still doesn't change the fact that a group, with the authority to compel an individual to support them based on the groups impression that their effort benefits everyone, is infringing on individual liberty.

[Omaha Steve]

16. Not everyone

It depends on the circumstances. Large companies may have different areas represented by different unions or even non-union areas. It depends on how the organizing was done originally. VW is going through this now. They may have one local cover the paint shop, and a different union or local for another specialized area, etc.

It's called a bargaining group. IF you are in it you can't op-out of a contract. You can only join or reject the union in right to work states.

And the funny thing is most right to work states have the lowest earnings averages per worker. A great fact anti-union people try to hide in any way they can.

[Omaha Steve]

17. From the NLRB flyer

http://www.dol.gov/olms/regs/compliance/employeerightsposter11x17_final.pdf

Under the NLRA, it is illegal for your employer to: Promise or grant promotions, pay raises, or other benefits to discourage or encourage union support.

Meaning you can't get a better deal than the contract on your own.

[Android3.14]

18. Not arguing about the benefits of unions

Thanks for the explanation. Sounds like the extent of the union coverage is part of the negotiations between the union, employees and employer.

I'm not arguing about the benefits of unions for workers, any more than I would argue about the benefits of La Leche League for breast feeding women and their children. It's the bit about forcing someone to support a group with which they disagree.

[Omaha Steve]

19. I understand about the a group with which they disagree

But usually it is just being to cheap to pay dues. Why buy the cow when you... They knew the union was there (unless it was certified after they were hired) and decided they wanted the job probably for the pay and benefits. The union and members do spent $ on these non-members.


Union members earn better wages and benefits than workers who aren’t union members. On average, union workers’ wages are 27 percent higher than their nonunion counterparts.

Unionized workers are 60 percent more likely to have employer-provided pensions.

More than 79 percent of union workers have jobs that provide health insurance benefits, but less than half of nonunion workers do. Unions help employers create a more stable, productive workforce—where workers have a say in improving their jobs.

Unions help bring workers out of poverty and into the middle class. In fact, in states where workers don’t have union rights, workers’ incomes are lower.

[Android3.14]

20. It probably is just people wanting to avoid another expense

I've been that cheap at times in my life.

Whenever I've had a union available, I've joined. The one time I needed the union to stand up for me, it wasn't there.

Even accounting for that, some organization forcing me to support it just gets my craw.

[PumpkinAle]

6. Proud union member here - signed up

my very first day.......... because I know history and I believe in unions.

But there are people who I work with who don't believe in unions and bad mouth them every chance they get............... but are also the ones who complain when their pay raises aren't as high as they think they should be.

I say if you want these people want the pay raises that the unions negotiate among other things then they should join the union, otherwise wait 6 months and then you can receive the same benefits.

[father founding]

7. Que Up

Guess who is going to be first to get laid off, seen it time and again.