Printable Page Headline News   Return to Menu - Page 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 13
Gorsuch Deciding Vote in Union Case    02/20 06:16

   America's union leaders are about to find out if they were right to fiercely 
oppose Neil Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court as a pivotal, potentially 
devastating vote against organized labor.

   WASHINGTON (AP) -- America's union leaders are about to find out if they 
were right to fiercely oppose Neil Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court as 
a pivotal, potentially devastating vote against organized labor.

   The newest justice holds the deciding vote in a case to be argued Feb. 26 
that could affect the financial viability of unions that are major supporters 
of Democratic candidates and causes. The unions represent more than 5 million 
government workers in 24 states and the District of Columbia who could be 
affected by the outcome. The other eight justices split 4 to 4 when the issue 
was last at the court in 2016.

   The court is being asked to jettison a 41-year-old ruling that allows states 
to require government employees who don't want to be union members to pay for 
their share of activities the union undertakes on behalf of all workers, not 
just its members. These so-called fair share fees cover the costs of collective 
bargaining and grievance procedures to deal with workplace complaints.

   Employees who don't join the union do not have to pay for the unions' 
political activities.

   Conservative anti-union interests are backing an Illinois government 
employee who says that being forced to pay anything at all violates his First 
Amendment speech rights.

   "I'm not against unions," said the employee, 65-year-old Mark Janus, who is 
represented by American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees 
Council 31. "I don't oppose the right of workers to organize. But the right to 
say no to unions is just as important as the right to say yes." He said he 
opposes his union's fight for wage and benefit increases when the state is "in 
pretty terrible financial condition right now."

   William Messenger, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation 
lawyer who is representing Janus at the Supreme Court, said everything the 
union does, including its bargaining with the state, is political and employees 
should not be forced to pay for it.

   The issue might have been settled in Janus' favor two years ago. In January 
2016, the court heard an identical complaint from California teachers and 
appeared to be ready to decide that states have no right to compel workers to 
pay money to unions.

   But less than a month later, Justice Antonin Scalia died and the court soon 
after announced its tie, in effect a win for the unions. The one-sentence 
opinion did not identify how each justice voted, but the court appeared split 
between its conservatives and liberals, the same breakdown seen in two other 
recent cases about public sector unions.

   Those unions cheered President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nomination of 
Judge Merrick Garland to fill the court's vacancy. But the Senate took no 
action on Garland's nomination, President Donald Trump won the election and the 
union opponents rushed new cases to the court to challenge the union fee 

   Union sentiment about Gorsuch was unvarnished when he was nominated and 
confirmed. "In Neil Gorsuch, Trump has nominated an extremist judge intent on 
overturning basic, well-established Supreme Court precedents," American 
Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten said.

   Following Gorsuch's Senate hearing, the Service Employees International 
Union said, "Throughout the last three days of testimony, Judge Gorsuch has 
again proved that he isn't the kind of judge who gives working people a fair 
shot at justice."

   Having won an unexpected reprieve in 2016 and with Gorsuch on the bench, 
labor leaders are predictably fatalistic about where this case is headed, 
focusing on how they might adapt to a world without compulsory payments.

   Union leaders have described the years-long fight against fair share fees as 
a political attack launched by wealthy special interests that want to destroy 
the labor movement

   Their fear is that a ruling for Janus that frees employees from supporting 
the unions financially will cause union members to stop paying dues, too.

   "Are you going to lose some people?" asked Lee Saunders, president of the 
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. "Sure. I'm not 
going to lie to you."

   Three Nobel Prize-winning economists and 33 other scholars described the 
potential fallout as a classic free-rider problem.

   "If individuals are not required to contribute, many who undisputedly 
benefit will nevertheless withhold their contributions out of simple 
self-interest, and others will withhold their contributions to avoid being 
taken advantage of by the free riders," the academics wrote in a Supreme Court 
filing in support of the unions.

   But Saunders, Weingarten and other union presidents said their focus has 
been on reconnecting with members, who have been more engaged since Trump's 

   "The opportunity here is to re-engage in a way that the reason for unions in 
the first place becomes a prominent reason again," Weingarten said.


Copyright DTN. All rights reserved. Disclaimer.
Powered By DTN