Janus, the plaintiff in the current case, is a child-support specialist for the state of IL who opted not to join the union that represents employees like him, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). He says people who exercise their right not to join a union still benefit from the labor agreements it negotiates, so it's only fair that they contribute.
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.
More than 50 people attended a pro-labor union rally Monday afternoon in center city Allentown hours after the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that could have major ramifications for public-sector unions.
The justices were split 4-4 when they took up the case in March 2016 following the death of Antonin Scalia the previous month.
Gorsuch is considered a reliably conservative justice, but his silence Monday will keep experts guessing about whether he will side with the conservative wing of the court and overturn a ruling from the 1970s that allows unions to collect those fees.
Conor Lamb, the Democratic candidate for Congress in the 18th District also raised concern that this case could have a widespread effect. Now, with President Donald Trump's appointee, Neil Gorsuch, joining Justices Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy, the fix is in. This basically says that due to the collective-bargaining process, the union employees have higher incomes than the non-union employees or right-to-work group, which may be true.
If the high court rules in favor of the plaintiff, Mark Janus, an IL public worker, non-union members will no longer be forced to pay union fees.
Cuomo said workers "need the strength and solidarity of the labor movement more now than ever".Читайте также: Arizona Wildcats' spirited play not enough in overtime loss at Oregon
Those state employees who decline to join the union are exempt from that portion of dues that go to finance its political action.
Gorsuch intently followed the back-and-forth argument and gave no indication of how he will vote in the case of Janus v. AFSCME.
"Let's face it, not everybody wants to be in the union", he said.
Neal noted the decision in the Janus case is "more of a state and local issue than a federal issue", because the fees at issue here aren't paid by unionized feds.
If the workers do not see the benefit in the union's agenda, the workers will keep their money.
"The constitution is a contract with the American people, and that contract says I have right to freedom of speech and association, " he said.
He is also a fair-share participant, meaning he is not a full union member.
Pro-union speakers said they are not confident of a victory at the Supreme Court, which is ruled by a conservative majority of five justices. "Justice White's opinion" in that case "says you can't run the government. if every grievance, every employment issue, becomes a constitutional issue", Frederick said.При любом использовании материалов сайта и дочерних проектов, гиперссылка на обязательна.
«» 2007 - 2019 Copyright.
Автоматизированное извлечение информации сайта запрещено.
Код для вставки в блог