Supreme Court strikes blow to public sector unions

[HuskyCaucasian]

MSNBC:

The Supreme Court dealt a serious blow to public sector unions Monday, limiting their ability to automatically deduct dues from public workers who nevertheless benefit from union negotiated contracts. The ruling fell along ideological lines, with the five conservative Justices in the majority and the four Democratic appointees in dissent.

 

“This case presents the question whether the First Amendment permits a State to compel personal care providers to subsidize speech on matters of public concern by a union that they do not wish to join or support,” wrote Justice Samuel Alito for the majority. “If we accepted Illinois’ argument, we would approve an unprecedented violation of the bedrock principle that, except perhaps in the rarest of circumstances, no person in this country may be compelled to subsidize speech by a third party that he or she does not wish to support.”

 

The ruling is a substantial setback to public sector unions, a bulwark of organized labor’s fading power, a key constituency for the Democratic Party, and a top target for the conservative movement.

 

Can anyone help break this down for me? I was recently forced into a public sector union (my department voted to unionize), however I have not taken part int he process at all, and have no desire to join. Is this ruling limited to just this case, or could it mean I dont have to pay anything for this new union?

Edited June 30, 2014 by Athomeboy_2000

[StrangeSox]

Illinois has this home healthcare worker program wherein the primary caretakers for someone who is sick can get paid by the state (I think through Medicare?) for caring for someone. E.g. your mother is terminally ill and requires substantial in-home care which you're providing. These people are considered to be public employees, or "partial" public employees as this ruling differentiates. Because of their unique status, they cannot be required to join the public union. It doesn't apply to your case since you're a regular, full public employee.

 

What this could be, though, is one step towards gutting previous SCOTUS rulings and essentially making the whole country Right-to-Work (a man to death) states wherein you can get all of the benefits of union representation (contract negotiations, termination hearings etc.) without having to pay into the union. It creates pretty obvious free rider problems and undermines the ability of unions to fund themselves.

[EvilMonkey]

Illinois has this home healthcare worker program wherein the primary caretakers for someone who is sick can get paid by the state (I think through Medicare?) for caring for someone. E.g. your mother is terminally ill and requires substantial in-home care which you're providing. These people are considered to be public employees, or "partial" public employees as this ruling differentiates. Because of their unique status, they cannot be required to join the public union. It doesn't apply to your case since you're a regular, full public employee.

 

What this could be, though, is one step towards gutting previous SCOTUS rulings and essentially making the whole country Right-to-Work (a man to death) states wherein you can get all of the benefits of union representation (contract negotiations, termination hearings etc.) without having to pay into the union. It creates pretty obvious free rider problems and undermines the ability of unions to fund themselves.

I think the next logical step would be to enable employers to stop collecting union dues for the unions. Make the unions do their own collections, and you will see how many people truly want to be a part of it.

[StrangeSox]

That is how it works in RTW states. The unions still have to represent everyone in contract negotiations and they still have to provide grievance service for non-members.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Tangent: I dont believe employees should be forced into a union if they were hired prior to the creation of the union.

[StrangeSox]

I'm not sure how it works in Illinois, but I don't think you're required to actually join the union necessarily. The union can still collect some amount of fees from you for services rendered on your behalf, though. When they're negotiating the IT dept. contract, they're representing everyone. If you have a grievance, they'll represent you even if you're not a member. In return, in non-RTW states, they can collect some amount of money from you because of that. It's less than full union dues and excludes political funding.

[Jake]

Some people feel like that's too much, still. Shouldn't be required to do anything for the union. Would happily forgo the benefits if it means they can someday, maybe earn more money than everyone else. Damn the odds that it will lower everyone's pay/benefits.

[ptatc]

I'm not sure how it works in Illinois, but I don't think you're required to actually join the union necessarily. The union can still collect some amount of fees from you for services rendered on your behalf, though. When they're negotiating the IT dept. contract, they're representing everyone. If you have a grievance, they'll represent you even if you're not a member. In return, in non-RTW states, they can collect some amount of money from you because of that. It's less than full union dues and excludes political funding.

This is how it works. You pay dues and are represented by the union but don't need to join. The only reason to join is to vote on union issues such as contract approval or strikes. Everyone pays the same regatdless as you are still represented and are part of the negotiating body and get the advantages or disadvantages of the negotiated contract.

[Jenksismyhero]

This is how it works. You pay dues and are represented by the union but don't need to join. The only reason to join is to vote on union issues such as contract approval or strikes. Everyone pays the same regatdless as you are still represented and are part of the negotiating body and get the advantages or disadvantages of the negotiated contract.

 

At least with laborer unions (plumbers, electrical, ironworkers, etc), if you don't join you run the risk of not getting any jobs. It cracks me up that liberals love unions and unions are the most unfair, good ol' boys, you're either with us or against us, organized bodies we have in this country.

[Jake]

Unions are one of the best safeguards against unfair wealth distributions. Like everything, especially economic things, there are pluses and minuses.

[Jenksismyhero]

Unions are one of the best safeguards against unfair wealth distributions. Like everything, especially economic things, there are pluses and minuses.

 

Yeah I didn't mean to ignore some of the good, but the wealth distribution stuff doesn't really jive when you also add in competitive laborers in the same market. In Chicago for example, good luck getting any work as a tradesman in any area if you're not a member of a union. It's an absolute monopoly. While that's great for the union bosses and the union members, it's not re-distributing any wealth for the non-union workers. Well, it is, by taking the potential income away from them.

[StrangeSox]

stop being a scab and join the union so that you can stand together instead of undermining each other