Supreme Court to hear pivotal challenge to union fees
Source: Reuters
SUPREME COURT FEBRUARY 26, 2018 / 9:42 AM / UPDATED 33 MINUTES AGO
Supreme Court to hear pivotal challenge to union fees
Lawrence Hurley 4 MIN READ
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday was set to hear 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.
Dueling groups of protesters gathered outside the white marble courthouse ahead of the scheduled one-hour argument. ... The nine justices will weigh a challenge backed by anti-union groups to the legality of 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.
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, Illinois state worker Mark Janus.
Two dozen states require payment of these so-called agency fees, covering roughly 5 million public-sector workers. A Supreme Court ruling disallowing these fees would deal a setback to American organized labor at a time when the movement already is in a reduced state compared to the past.
Read more: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-unions/supreme-court-to-hear-pivotal-challenge-to-union-fees-idUSKCN1GA1VB
Wonkblog Analysis
The Supreme Court will soon decide whether workers must pay unions again
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/26/the-supreme-court-will-soon-decide-if-workers-must-pay-unions-again/?utm_term.94df5b1119be
By Danielle Paquette February 26 at 6:00 AM
-- -- -- --
Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/janus-v-american-federation-state-county-municipal-employees-council-31/
-- -- -- --
Monday round-up
By Edith Roberts on Feb 26, 2018 at 7:32 am
eroberts@scotusblog.com
http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/02/monday-round-up-382/
Edith Roberts Editor
Posted Mon, February 26th, 2018 7:32 am
Monday round-up
This morning the court hears oral argument in one of the terms major cases, Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, in which the justices will consider whether an Illinois law allowing public-sector unions to charge nonmembers for collective-bargaining activities violates the First Amendment. Amy Howe previewed Janus for this blog. Kristina Hurley and Michael Iadevaia preview the case at Cornell Law Schools Legal Information Institute. Counting to 5 (podcast) offers another advance look at the case. At Reuters, Robert Iafolla and Lawrence Hurley report that [t]aking away mandatory agency fees could have profound implications for public-sector union coffers. For The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports that although [a]ttitudes about the value of public-sector unions underlie the case, [t]he specific legal question before the court is more abstract. Additional coverage comes from Nina Totenberg at NPR, Ariane de Vogue at CNN, and Steven Mazie at The Economists Espresso blog. Andrew Hamma and Caitlin Emma at Politico also look at Janus, as do Mary Bottari at In These Times and Rachel Cohen at The Intercept. For The New York Times, Noam Scheiber and Kenneth Vogel report that [t]he case illustrates the cohesiveness with which conservative philanthropists have taken on the unions in recent decades. Another look at the donors behind Janus comes from Ed Pilkington at The Guardian.
The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal maintains that a ruling for Mark Janus wouldnt be a death blow to government unions, though they might have to prioritize resources and reduce political spending. At The Nation, David Cole and Amanda Shanor argue that [t]he First Amendment protects the right to speech, but not the right to get something for nothing. Additional commentary comes from David Rivkin and Andrew Grossman in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, George Will in an op-ed for The Washington Post, William Gould in an op-ed for The Mercury News, Cory Booker in an op-ed for HuffPost, Kim Glas in an op-ed at The Hill, and Xavier Becerra in an op-ed for the San Diego Union-Tribune, Sean McElwee and Mark Joseph Stern at Slate, and Kenneth Jost at Jost on Justice. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel on an amicus brief in support of the respondents in this case.]
Todays second argument is in Ohio v. American Express Co., which involves the application of antitrust law to credit-card-network anti-steering rules. Beth Farmer had this blogs preview. Connor ONeill and Abigail Yeo preview the case for Cornell. Subscript offers a graphic explainer for the case, and Counting to 5 (podcast) has a preview here, and a preview of all this weeks cases here. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel on an amicus brief in support of the petitioners in this case.]
....
Recommended Citation: Edith Roberts, Monday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Feb. 26, 2018, 7:32 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/02/monday-round-up-382/
= new reply since forum marked as read
because a person does not believe in "MAJORITY " rule ......................
This is why Citizens United sucks................................big time....................
November 2018 cannot get here fast enough
