Will the U.S. Supreme Court gut public-employee unions?
By Garrett Epps, Atlantic
The most important fact about Monday’s oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association is that this case—one of the most important of the term—will be decided on the basis of no facts at all.
The petitioners in Friedrichs are asking the Court to hobble unions that represent more than 9 million public employees in 23 states and the District of Columbia. That decision will have large consequences for those employees, for the states that employ them, and for the political system. But the Court will decide the case without, apparently, serious consideration of those effects.
Representing the challengers, the conservative lawyer Michael Carvin described a public-employee union as a purely political group that “advocates an ideological viewpoint” his clients “do not approve of.” Every single thing a public-employee union does, he said, is a matter of public concern; contract negotiations with teachers’ unions, for example, affect class size, teacher promotion policies, and overall state funding—every one of them a hotly contested political issue. In contrast, the union lawyer David Frederick told the Court that many of the union’s activities are “mundane matters” without political content.
When money is extorted against the will of the employee for political purposes the employee doesn’t support, it should be illegal. This funding source for political parties needs to eliminated for those opposed and optional for those who want to do it. Just like mandatory government health care should not be mandatory under threat of large fines for those filing taxes.
Why would American workers promote policies that take away their rights, lower their wages, eliminate benefits and force them to compete with cheap labor 3rd world countries? The answer is, as always, foxnooz and hate radio tell them to-the race to the bottom for the American middle class stupidly includes ridding our society of decent jobs that allow families to work hard, have healthcare, raise kids and retire with dignity-pull your head out of your jones
Because, Totaled, not all American workers believe that unions are actually working in THEIR best interests. Some of us believe that unions are just as bad as the any corporation or government entity when it comes to taking money and power.
Why should anyone be forced to pay for union representation if they don’t want it? Force is enslavement.
The right of government unions to exist was bestowed by law and can be taken away by law.
FDR would have nothing to do with government unions as he saw the harm they could do while he promoted unions for private businesses.
Government employee unions can also bribe their employers with impunity. Any wonder government employees earn much more than private sector employees doing the same work
Interesting enough George Meany head of the AFCIO was opposed to government unions.