Supreme Court could cripple public unions in run-up to 2018 midterms

[TalkRadio]

The Supreme Court will hear arguments Monday in a case that could shrink government unions and their campaign war chests by as much as two thirds, with potentially devastating consequences for the Democratic Party in a competitive election cycle.

The case, Janus v. AFSCME, challenges the money that public unions representing teachers, firefighters, nurses and other government employees collect from non-members to cover their share of collective bargaining costs. Democratic candidates and causes rely on these unions for more than $100 million in contributions every election cycle, and for armies of workers dispatched to staff phone banks and canvass neighborhoods across the country.

Plaintiff Mark Janus, an Illinois state worker who declined to join the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Workers, argues in his lawsuit that the payments he's compelled to pay the union violate his First Amendment rights. The facts of the case are near-identical to those in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, on which the high court deadlocked in 2016, following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. The addition of Justice Neil Gorsuch is widely expected to give plaintiffs the fifth vote they need to outlaw the non-member fees.

That would be a serious blow to Democrats in the midterm election campaign. Government unions account for about 6 percent of the money spent on Democratic candidates in federal elections — and that doesn't include significant in-kind contributions like phone banks and canvassing.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/25/supreme-court-public-unions-2018-midterms-423436

 

[Rightguide]

Hope springs eternal. They are already in the process of destroying the economies of several states.

 

[EternalFantasies]

Thank you God.

Those are definitely steps in the right direction.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Thank you God.

Those are definitely steps in the right direction.

Absolutely. As a former civil servant, I know what it is to be forced to support a candidate I disliked. Unions have no business compelling such support from the rank and file.

 

[EternalFantasies]

Absolutely. As a former civil servant, I know what it is to be forced to support a candidate I disliked. Unions have no business compelling such support from the rank and file.

+ : tip of the iceberg.

 

[HisArpy]

I find it ironic that Dem's HATE Citizens United but are all over political contributions forced from union members.

IMO, Citizens United was wrongly decided. Corporations aren't "people', it is a legal fiction for the purposes of doing business. It has no mouth, no brain and cannot make decisions independently from it's employees and directors. It is, in a very real sense, unable to actually "speak" except through those who manipulate its actions. Which is the very definition of undue influence if such manipulation is for the purposes of enriching the directors in ANY fashion, including remuneration.

Be that as it may, under Citizens United, the Union has the right to contribute to whatever political campaign it wants. What it doesn't have the right to do is force the members to contribute to political campaigns they don't agree with. This follows other leading case law on the same issue.

I was optimistic about Gorsuch at first. I'm now thinking his appointment was nothing but a talking point on Constitutionalism but there ain't much real fire in his belly. Time will tell if I'm right on this. I think I am, but only time will tell if that's so.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I find it ironic that Dem's HATE Citizens United but are all over political contributions forced from union members.

IMO, Citizens United was wrongly decided. Corporations aren't "people', it is a legal fiction for the purposes of doing business. It has no mouth, no brain and cannot make decisions independently from it's employees and directors. It is, in a very real sense, unable to actually "speak" except through those who manipulate its actions. Which is the very definition of undue influence if such manipulation is for the purposes of enriching the directors in ANY fashion, including remuneration.

Be that as it may, under Citizens United, the Union has the right to contribute to whatever political campaign it wants. What it doesn't have the right to do is force the members to contribute to political campaigns they don't agree with. This follows other leading case law on the same issue.

I was optimistic about Gorsuch at first. I'm now thinking his appointment was nothing but a talking point on Constitutionalism but there ain't much real fire in his belly. Time will tell if I'm right on this. I think I am, but only time will tell if that's so.

To begin with, the Janus case has nothing to do with union "members [being forced] to contribute to political campaigns they don't agree with." It has to do with NON-MEMBERS being forced to contribute to collective bargaining efforts that they, as public workers BENEFIT from, -- a compulsion that has been legally endorsed since the 1977 case of Abood v. Detroit Board of Education.

But that's not even the real point that needs to be made here.

The real point is that Citizens United continues to be a case woefully misunderstood. This Wiki entry explains it better:

During the 2004 presidential campaign, a conservative nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization, Citizens United, filed a complaint before the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that advertisements for Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11, a docudrama critical of the Bush administration's response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, produced and marketed by a variety of corporate entities, constituted political advertising and thus could not be aired within the 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election. The FEC dismissed the complaint after finding no evidence that broadcast advertisements featuring a candidate within the proscribed time limits had actually been made. The FEC later dismissed a second complaint which argued that the movie itself constituted illegal corporate spending advocating the election or defeat of a candidate, which was illegal under the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 and the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974. In dismissing that complaint, the FEC found that:

The complainant alleged that the release and distribution of FAHRENHEIT 9/11 constituted an independent expenditure because the film expressly advocated the defeat of President Bush and that by being fully or partially responsible for the film's release, Michael Moore and other entities associated with the film made excessive and/or prohibited contributions to unidentified candidates. The Commission found no reason to believe the respondents violated the Act because the film, associated trailers and website represented bona fide commercial activity, not "contributions" or "expenditures" as defined by the Federal Election Campaign Act.

In response, Citizens United produced a documentary, called Celsius 41.11, highly critical of both FAHRENHEIT 9/11 and 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry. The FEC, however, held that showing the movie and advertisements for it would violate the Federal Election Campaign Act, because Citizens United was not a bona fide commercial film maker.

In the wake of these decisions, Citizens United sought to establish itself as a bona fide commercial film maker before the 2008 elections, producing several documentary films between 2005 and 2007. By early 2008, it sought to run television commercials to promote its political documentary Hillary: The Movie and to air the movie on DirecTV.

In short, Citizens United is not about Exon-Mobile circumventing FEC rules about contribution limits to political parties and individual political campaigns, although it can reasonably be argued that it COULD have that effect.

At its core, Citizens United is about the right of individuals to FORM partnerships, corporate or otherwise, for the very purpose of exercising their First Amendment rights and that, once formed, they be treated equitably regardless of whether their political messages are produced by "recognized documentary filmmakers."

 

[WoundedKnee]

I wasn't going to open this thread at all, but I saw the Colonel post, so I looked. Once again an enlightening comment.
I do note the hypocrisy of the Left when they don't want any "Conservative" groups (especially, right now, the NRA) to have a say in the political process, but the union's right to cajole and bribe politicians must be upheld at all costs.

 

[EternalFantasies]

The subject isn't necessarily about citizens united.

whatever that is

 

[bellisarius]

Alright Col., correct me if I'm wrong, or the law has changed, BUT

Can't any union member file paperwork with the union that requires the union to only deduct those dues that go directly to collective bargaining and benefits? In other words, if the union is spending 33% of the dues collected on political causes then that members dues have to be reduced by 33%?

So the employee does have a way out, sorta anyway.

On the subject in general, some president should show some balls and repeal EO-10988. Government employee unions are the enemy of the people. No real collective bargaining takes place in that there is really no one from management sitting across the table from the union. They have a virtually unlimited pile of money to demand (the taxpayers wallet). In other words those unions serve no discernible public interest.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Alright Col., correct me if I'm wrong, or the law has changed, BUT

Can't any union member file paperwork with the union that requires the union to only deduct those dues that go directly to collective bargaining and benefits? In other words, if the union is spending 33% of the dues collected on political causes then that members dues have to be reduced by 33%?

So the employee does have a way out, sorta anyway.

On the subject in general, some president should show some balls and repeal EO-10988. Government employee unions are the enemy of the people. No real collective bargaining takes place in that there is really no one from management sitting across the table from the union. They have a virtually unlimited pile of money to demand (the taxpayers wallet). In other words those unions serve no discernible public interest.

The union bosses claim that's what they do. And, if you believe them, I have a fine, slightly used bridge you might be interested in buying.

 

[HisArpy]

The union bosses claim that's what they do. And, if you believe them, I have a fine, slightly used bridge you might be interested in buying.

Don't do it!

That bridge only leads to the "Jimmy Hoffa Retirement Home."

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Alright Col., correct me if I'm wrong, or the law has changed, BUT

Can't any union member file paperwork with the union that requires the union to only deduct those dues that go directly to collective bargaining and benefits? In other words, if the union is spending 33% of the dues collected on political causes then that members dues have to be reduced by 33%?

So the employee does have a way out, sorta anyway.

On the subject in general, some president should show some balls and repeal EO-10988. Government employee unions are the enemy of the people. No real collective bargaining takes place in that there is really no one from management sitting across the table from the union. They have a virtually unlimited pile of money to demand (the taxpayers wallet). In other words those unions serve no discernible public interest.

The union bosses claim that's what they do. And, if you believe them, I have a fine, slightly used bridge you might be interested in buying.

I don't claim to be an expert in this particular level of employment law detail, but my gut instinct tells me Boxlicker is closer to the truth.

 

[McMax]

If public sector/government workers are covered by the Civil Service Act then then should never by allowed to unionize and unions in those sectors should be abolished.

 

[TalkRadio]

‘Swing vote’ Gorsuch silent during case that could crush public-sector unions

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court appeared divided along ideological lines on Monday in a high-stakes case that could deprive unions representing police, firefighters and certain other public employees of a key source of funds ― millions of dollars in fees they can collect annually from non-members.

During about an hour of arguments, conservative justices appeared sympathetic to the challenge brought by anti-union groups arguing that the fees that workers who are not members of public-sector unions must pay to help cover the costs of collective bargaining with state and local governments violate workers’ free speech rights.

Liberal justices asked questions indicating support for maintaining the fees.

The court has a 5-4 conservative majority. Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, the court’s newest justice and the likely deciding vote, did not speak during the argument.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...lic-sector-unions_us_5a944b3be4b01f65f598ff12