Union members protest Supreme Court case on nonunion fees

Marcus Newton
March 2, 2018

Union-backed protesters held signs saying "America needs union jobs", while those supporting the challengers had signs saying "stand with Mark", a reference to the plaintiff in the case, IL state worker Mark Janus.

In between union chants of "right to work has got to go" and "stand up, fight back" they dismissed the plaintiff, an IL state employee named Mark Janus, who doesn't want to give his money to the union who represents him. He would like to stop doing so, rather than support positions and activities that conflict with his views. On Monday, the conservative majority of the U.S.

Hundreds of union workers marched through downtown Pittsburgh Monday morning, as the U.S. Supreme Court was set to hear a case that could deal a painful financial blow to organized labor. "Instead of trying to make it more hard for working people to use their power in numbers, we should be making it easier to join together in unions, so that they can continue their work of improving the lives of county residents".

Audrie Francis, a fourth-year environmental science student and member of Student Labor Advocacy, said they think undergraduate students should pay attention to campus protests on labor issues.

There are obvious problems with AFSCME's argument for compulsory fees.

Because the employer is a government agency, that violates the First Amendment, which forbids the government to compel speech, Janus and his lawyers argue.

Green also argues, whether they like it or not, Janus and others benefit from what unions do for them, and still will even if they don't pay dues. When AFSCME pushes for higher wages or changes in work rules, it is putting itself on one side of a political issue.

More news: PM 'not offended' by 60 Mins interview: 'Perhaps because I'm from Morrinsville'
More news: Meet the Nokia 1, HMD's Gateway to the Smartphone World
More news: Warren Buffett gained $29 billion in 2017 from Trump's tax reforms

Right-to-work groups contend that the 1977 ruling, known as Abood, relies on a false distinction between lobbying and collective bargaining. When he cited "mileage reimbursements", Roberts disagreed: "It's all money".

"It's been awful public policy. And eventually, I guess, if enough people drop out, it's kind of like a church I guess, if not enough of the congregation is paying their tithe, then eventually, I assume they'd have to close their doors". They include steps to make it easier to join a union, and harder to opt out, says the AFL-CIO's Cilento.

Justice Elena Kagan said ruling in favor of Mr. Janus could upend union relationships across the country. But they also fear losing, yes, political power. The AFL-CIO, a coalition of private- and public-sector unions, organized protests on Saturday against Janus' case.

Supporters of IL government employee Mark Janus cheer as he walks to thank them, outside the Supreme Court, Monday, Feb. 26, 2018, in Washington. What if IL law required certain workers to contribute to groups that provide useful services but also donate heavily to Republican causes?

California is one of 22 states that require what is known as "fair share" or agency fees. How is that good for the people of the state? Unions shouldn't be able to force people who aren't members of the union to contribute to their coffers.

The Supreme Court is likely to hand down a decision in June.

A similar case brought on behalf of a teacher in 2016 ended in a tie after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. There's no reason for the court to take the issue again.

Other reports by MaliBehiribAe

Discuss This Article