It's Game Time For Unions Thanks To Politicized SCOTUS

Mitch is preening about having stolen a SCOTUS pick for BHO and infected the Court forever:


The Supreme Court has delivered a potentially crushing blow to public-sector unions, ruling 5-4 today that they cannot collect fees from non-members. The ruling will likely diminish unions’ negotiating power and, with it, their political clout.

Why it matters: The public sector is one of the last bastions of labor’s strength — about 34% of government workers are unionized, compared with just 6.5% of the private sector. But this ruling could shrink those rolls significantly.



So now unions need to do "pro bono" legal work for shirkoffs who'll refuse to pay dues.



in Jersey City school in which I taught, there were two teachers who were shunned. Not so much as a “good morning hello.”


They didn’t participate in the 2000 strike.


Can Unions now negotiate benefits and salaries for their members solely?

Can a non-member go in and ask for a raise on his own?


LOST said:
Can Unions now negotiate benefits and salaries for their members solely?
Can a non-member go in and ask for a raise on his own?

 From a quick read through of Alito’s opinion the answer “no”, at least not effectively. In most cases the unions are appointed as sole negotiating rep for all class employees- whether that will continue to be the case is not addressed in Janus. The opinion does offer the view that states (and this is a state issue- feds don’t allow the collection of agency fees) can’t discriminate between union and non union employees because again, the union is the only one allowed to negotiate on behalf of anyone.


The opinion also addresses (obviously) the free rider concern unions have. Alito said in no other advocacy area would members of a group be compelled to pay for advocacy puatatively on their behalf- for example, people over 55 can’t be compelled to pay the AARP just because the AARP claims to be acting in the over 55 person’s interests. Janus (the person) made the argument that he was not a free-rider to a good destination- he was “shanghied” to go somewhere he didn’t want to go as a taxpayer, a class he identified himself with more than as a state employee.


I also see some indication that all the rushed legislative activity to hold current union membership by making it somewhat difficult to opt out was also rubbished- it will be affirmatively opting in, not having to affirmatively opt out.


LOST said:
Can Unions now negotiate benefits and salaries for their members solely?
Can a non-member go in and ask for a raise on his own?

 That's not how it works. Unions will continue to negotiate contracts. Non-members will reap the benefits of those negotiations without having to pay dues. I, for one, will not be feeling friendly towards non-paying members.


So the Unions are "appointed as sole negotiating rep for all class employees" but can't charge all of them for its services. That certainly presents another Constitutional problem.


LOST said:
So the Unions are "appointed as sole negotiating rep for all class employees" but can't charge all of them for its services. That certainly presents another Constitutional problem.

 It does. Should they be the only reps, given that non-members disagree? That’s not what this case is about, but “labor peace” was held as a compelling state interest in Abood but is found to not be in Janus. So you are right, there is prob going to be a case on whether unions should retain their sole negotiating position.


Shoot. We shunned non-members who were paying 85% of dues as required.


Because of overreaching over the years by Republicans, union members have become more aware and active. Witness the state wide teacher protests and "strikes" in many conservative states.

It may be that the shirkoffs will be few, maybe 10% or less.

I wonder if the unions can set up their plans to deny other benefits to shirkers, such as not representing shirkers who have grievances.


But the strength of unions has always been unity. I'm guessing non-members will feel the hostility, as they should.


 
I wonder if the unions can set up their plans to deny other benefits to shirkers, such as not representing shirkers who have grievances.

The problem here becomes precedent. They'll even be afforded union representation in any dispute with administrators. I'm guessing it's the peer pressure that will most affect them.


BG9 said:
Because of overreaching over the years by Republicans, union members have become more aware and active. Witness the state wide teacher protests and "strikes" in many conservative states.
It may be that the shirkoffs will be few, maybe 10% or less.
I wonder if the unions can set up their plans to deny other benefits to shirkers, such as not representing shirkers who have grievances.

 Alito writes that unions have the right many places to attend grievance hearings even if the employee declines union representation because grievance outcomes can impact wider bargaining agreements. Doubt unions will just want to stay out of them.


Wondering if states can insist on union dues with pressure from strong unions. 

 


GL2 said:
Wondering if states can insist on union dues with pressure from strong unions. 
 

 In a sense they already did- compelled membership to have the job. Then Abood and agency fees, and now Janus. So the answer is they can’t.


As an old coot who belonged to the AFT in Newark and NJEA in the burbs, I and others watched as a few scabs walked past us and into buildings even as we were fighting for them. 


Agree (hopefully) with BG9 that the effect won't be great. Who wants to work in a setting where no one likes you?


Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell took a victory lap during a Politco Playbook interview on Wednesday, calling his decision to block President Barack Obama from filling the vacant Supreme Court seat during his tenure as the “single most consequential decision I ever made.”


GL2 said:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell took a victory lap during a Politco Playbook interview on Wednesday, calling his decision to block President Barack Obama from filling the vacant Supreme Court seat during his tenure as the “single most consequential decision I ever made.”

Is there a member of Congress more odious than Mitch McConnell? I can’t wait for him to get his comeuppance. 


ElizMcCord said:


GL2 said:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell took a victory lap during a Politco Playbook interview on Wednesday, calling his decision to block President Barack Obama from filling the vacant Supreme Court seat during his tenure as the “single most consequential decision I ever made.”
Is there a member of Congress more odious than Mitch McConnell? I can’t wait for him to get his comeuppance. 

 Not sure what the comeuppance you’re referring to- but I just googled “Janus” to get into the news crawl and the first paid link is an obviously newly launched site that was staged for the decision moment. 


ElizMcCord said:


GL2 said:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell took a victory lap during a Politco Playbook interview on Wednesday, calling his decision to block President Barack Obama from filling the vacant Supreme Court seat during his tenure as the “single most consequential decision I ever made.”
Is there a member of Congress more odious than Mitch McConnell? I can’t wait for him to get his comeuppance. 

What would now stop a Senate majority from refusing to vote on the nomination of any nominee from a president of the opposing party?


Optimistic take from Harry Nespoli, chair of the Municipal Labor Committee, an umbrella organization of 103 New York City municipal unions representing 500,000 workers and retirees, and President of the Uniformed Sanitationmen’s Association, Local 831, of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

He's saying the Janus decision may strengthen unions.

The question many ask is: How will the public-sector unions survive? My answer will surprise many. These unions will be stronger than they are now.

To begin with, unions have already moved aggressively in anticipation of a negative decision on the Janus case.

We have increased communication with our members as to the value of the union. We have improved responsible financial planning. We are learning how unions in right-to-work states have dealt with the problem.
...
But let’s be honest. Even though it is advertised as an affirmation freedom of speech, or freedom to choose, the Janus decision is really the result of well-funded right-wing groups’ efforts to starve and destroy public sector unions.

These groups hate that unions use a small portion of members’ dues to offset the right wing’s huge corporate political contributions. These right-wing elites don’t want us helping to elect leaders who will defend the rights of working men and women, leaders who will help the working middle class.

Yet when we look back at this time period and the consequences, I believe it will be seen as a time when the result was to make unions stronger, not weaker. Working men and women will have a stronger understanding of why they and their families are better off with a union, and they will continue to pay their union dues.

Teachers, in red states, who've been, over the years, beaten down seemed to have gained a stronger understanding.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-janus-makes-unions-stronger-20180627-story.html


Formerlyjerseyjack said:
in Jersey City school in which Itaught, there were two teachers who were shunned. Not so much as a “good morning hello.”


The didn’t participate in the 2000 strike.

 Sounds like those doing the shunning were a very open minded group.


ElizMcCord said:


GL2 said:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell took a victory lap during a Politco Playbook interview on Wednesday, calling his decision to block President Barack Obama from filling the vacant Supreme Court seat during his tenure as the “single most consequential decision I ever made.”
Is there a member of Congress more odious than Mitch McConnell? I can’t wait for him to get his comeuppance. 

 No one more odious, I agree. Wish him nothing but the worst.


RealityForAll said:


Formerlyjerseyjack said:
in Jersey City school in which Itaught, there were two teachers who were shunned. Not so much as a “good morning hello.”


The didn’t participate in the 2000 strike.
 Sounds like those doing the shunning were a very open minded group.

 You do not understand the Reality of a Labor Strike.


LOST said:


RealityForAll said:

Formerlyjerseyjack said:
in Jersey City school in which Itaught, there were two teachers who were shunned. Not so much as a “good morning hello.”


The didn’t participate in the 2000 strike.
 Sounds like those doing the shunning were a very open minded group.
 You do not understand the Reality of a Labor Strike.

Shunning is considered, in most precincts of the 21st century, to be an antiquated penalty.  Further, It is a sanction often used by very strict religious groups. 


Why would a teacher's union need to use a penalty commonly found in old line religious orders (such as the Amish)?  


Perhaps, such teacher's unions are filled with true believers look to enforce purity and loyalty.  Just food for thought.


BG9 said:
Optimistic take from Harry Nespoli, chair of the Municipal Labor Committee, an umbrella organization of 103 New York City municipal unions representing 500,000 workers and retirees, and President of the Uniformed Sanitationmen’s Association, Local 831, of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
He's saying the Janus decision may strengthen unions.


The question many ask is: How will the public-sector unions survive? My answer will surprise many. These unions will be stronger than they are now.

To begin with, unions have already moved aggressively in anticipation of a negative decision on the Janus case.

We have increased communication with our members as to the value of the union. We have improved responsible financial planning. We are learning how unions in right-to-work states have dealt with the problem.
...
But let’s be honest. Even though it is advertised as an affirmation freedom of speech, or freedom to choose, the Janus decision is really the result of well-funded right-wing groups’ efforts to starve and destroy public sector unions.

These groups hate that unions use a small portion of members’ dues to offset the right wing’s huge corporate political contributions. These right-wing elites don’t want us helping to elect leaders who will defend the rights of working men and women, leaders who will help the working middle class.

Yet when we look back at this time period and the consequences, I believe it will be seen as a time when the result was to make unions stronger, not weaker. Working men and women will have a stronger understanding of why they and their families are better off with a union, and they will continue to pay their union dues.
Teachers, in red states, who've been, over the years, beaten down seemed to have gained a stronger understanding.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-janus-makes-unions-stronger-20180627-story.html

 I appreciate the brave face he’s put on, but the track record of public union membership post “right to work” laws has been clear: large drops in membership, on the order of 25-40%.


Janus can be viewed as a national right to work ruling. The impact will likely be crippling to union political activities, though not necessarily to collective bargaining efforts.


I would imagine they will be careful with their spending this cycle given that no amount of spending is going to reverse the facts on the ground. Political spending by the publics is quite sizable and runs amost 100% to Democrats. Definitely a kneecapping that any “blue wave” did not need.




Holy Mackel Kennedy retired.


I can't believe this is happening although we all knew it was possible. I can't imagine who Trump will come up with to replace Kennedy. Just heard a discussion about the desire to overturn Roe V Wade.

Judge Janine Pirro?


RealityForAll said:


LOST said:

RealityForAll said:

Formerlyjerseyjack said:
in Jersey City school in which Itaught, there were two teachers who were shunned. Not so much as a “good morning hello.”


The didn’t participate in the 2000 strike.
 Sounds like those doing the shunning were a very open minded group.
 You do not understand the Reality of a Labor Strike.
Shunning is considered, in most precincts of the 21st century, to be an antiquated penalty.  Further, It is a sanction often used by very strict religious groups. 


Why would a teacher's union need to use a penalty commonly found in old line religious orders (such as the Amish)?  


Perhaps, such teacher's unions are filled with true believers look to enforce purity and loyalty.  Just food for thought.

 I do not think that FormerlyJJ was using "shunning" in the same way as "old line religious orders".



In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.