The Legal Argument That Could Overturn ‘Right-to-Work’ Laws Around the Country

[eridani]

http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/19075/the_legal_argument_that_could_overturn_right_to_work_laws_around_the_countr

The logic that the Wisconsin judge leaned upon in his decision has its origins in a federal case called Sweeney v. Pence, in which unions made an unsuccessful attempt to overturn Indiana’s recent right-to-work statute on constitutional grounds. Although the unions themselves did not raise this argument in the 2014 case, Chief Judge Diane Wood argued in her dissent that “right-to-work” provisions violate the U.S. Constitution’s Takings Clause.

“This is a law,” says Marquette Law Professor Paul Secunda, “that compels one private party to provide benefits to another private party with no compensation.” He is convinced that right-to-work laws, which permit represented workers to quit their union and stop paying fees while simultaneously obligating that union to continue to spend resources representing them, are an unconstitutional “taking.”

If the issue makes its way up to the Supreme Court, and the justices agree with Secunda, the result could overturn the section of the National Labor Relations Act that allows states to pass right-to-work measures as well as the statutes in all 26 states that have passed them in one fell swoop.

The Wisconsin case won’t get there. Because Wisconsin is in the same 7th Circuit that rejected the “takings” argument in Sweeny v. Pence (making it, for now, a settled matter there), unions filed their case in state court over the state’s constitution.

But West Virginia and Michigan are states that recently passed right-to-work laws, and they are both in different federal court circuits. Unions in those states could challenge the constitutionality of right to work on the federal level. Unions in Idaho already have a case pending, which is a particularly exciting prospect as that state falls within the liberal 9th circuit. (Keep an eye out for Operating Engineers Local 370 v. Wasden.)

[Sherman A1]

1. I hope that this case law does indeed

lead to overturning all the RTW Laws that have been enacted across the states and prevents others from being so enacted.

[Android3.14]

2. I don't see it happening

The free speech argument would still trump the union stance.

[MichMan]

3. Why not just eliminate exclusive representation?

Wouldn't it be just as likely that Exclusive Representation clauses would be thrown out instead?

That is currently why unions are required to represent everyone. Individuals are now forbidden to bargain for themselves. Seems like that would satisfy the union argument against having to represent freeloaders

[awake]

4. This seems likely

What is needed is a new 21st century aproch to what unions are, the age of the company town with the company store has evolved, multinational companies have changed the game with "free trade" so new ways of orginaising workers to insure they are not exploited also need to arise. I do not have the answer but it seems like a similar issue is happing with political parties, where the old way of giving your power to a small group of insiders that are expected to look out for your interests is not working like it use to.