Saturday, February 04, 2017

Wait, what? "... a union's right to collect fees from employees who opt-out of the union."

How is that, in any way, shape or form, a "right"?  World gone mad.

What Trump’s Supreme Court pick means for the court - POLITICO: "Perhaps the most certain result of putting Gorsuch on the court is an eventual setback for public employee unions. Such unions avoided a likely defeat after Scalia's death last year when the court deadlocked, 4-4, in a case about fees for a large California teachers' union. The result signaled that if Scalia had still been on the court, a union's right to collect fees from employees who opt-out of the union would have been eliminated, dealing a potentially severe blow to the finances and political clout of the already-struggling labor movement...

The one view that made Gorsuch such a star with legal conservatives is his view that judges should do more to check the power of the modern regulatory state. That was an uncontroversial position on the right during the eight years of the Obama administration. What it means for the Trump administration is more complicated. As Trump's team moves to roll back climate change regulations, water pollution controls, pay and overtime regulations and similar measures put in place by Obama, the courts will be asked to rule on many of those moves. Gorsuch's rulings suggest he's inclined to take a rigorous look at agencies' actions in those areas and to make an independent determination of what the law requires, rather than deferring to agencies' expertise. "Congress isn't going to much of a job checking this president. Courts will do a better job of that because most judges take their jobs seriously," Winkler said. "Things like 'alternative facts' don't fly in a court of law. Conservative judges might not be that thrilled to help Donald Trump in his most extreme efforts.""

Fuck me, there it is.  When unions use non-member dues to finance political activities | Washington Examiner: "When the Supreme Court ruled in 1977 that government employee unions could collect a fee from nonmembers to cover the cost of collective bargaining, the justices noted that such fees could not be used to cover political activities. In that decision, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the court affirmed a Michigan law that required teachers who didn't want to join a union to pay a so-called “agency fee” to the Detroit Federation of Teachers for the work it did representing everyone on the job."

No comments:

Post a Comment