PDA

View Full Version : In attacking unions, Roberts Court forgets key lesson of New Deal



Green Arrow
06-30-2014, 04:20 PM
Via Slate (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2014/scotus_roundup/supreme_court_2014_harris_v_quinn_forgets_the_less on_of_the_new_deal.html):


Most people don’t associate freedom of speech with a deregulatory economic agenda. But that agenda is an untold story of the Roberts court, and it’s vital to understanding this morning’s decision in Harris v. Quinn.

Harris concerns the mandatory “fair share” fees that most unions charge all employees, including nonmembers, to support collective bargaining. These fees prevent free-riding. Unions are required by law to bargain on behalf of members and nonmembers alike, all of whom benefit from collective bargaining. If some employees could simply decline to pay to support collective bargaining, all would have the incentive to similarly opt out, thereby undermining the union and harming all employees. It’s a classic case of the free-rider problem.


As Emily notes, for public-sector unions, the court unanimously found nearly four decades ago that this free-rider reasoning trumps First Amendment concerns about freedom of speech and association. In Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the court upheld a requirement that all employees of a local government pay for the union’s collective bargaining activities. The court has never overruled Abood and has reaffirmed it in other contexts. Two years ago, however, in Knox v. SEIU, Justice Samuel Alito cast doubt on the future of Abood’s free-rider argument by classifying it as a First Amendment “anomaly.”


Today, in Harris, the time bomb that Justice Alito planted in Knox exploded—in part. Alito, citing himself in Knox, refused to apply Abood to the home-care assistants in Harris who don’t want to pay union dues. In one sense, the opinion is narrow. It does not overrule Abood, and it emphasizes the ways in which home-care workers differ from “full fledged public employees” such as teachers or police officers. Public-sector unions will live to fight another day.

On the other hand, I agree with Emily that Harris could herald the court someday revisiting Abood’s holding. Justice Alito argues that Abood rests on shaky empirical foundations, misreads precedent, fails to recognize differences between private- and public-sector unions, and gives rise to practical problems. Alito reads as though he wished to overrule Abood but lacked the votes. His denigration of Abood could someday matter, however.


Just as Knox portended Harris, Harris could well portend a far broader decision in a future case.
Alyosha, what is your opinion on Harris v. Quinn?

texan
06-30-2014, 05:00 PM
I understand the dilemma but your personal constitutional rights say that no one can force you to associate with someone that you don't want to be a part of, so whats right? An employer and a government that has written laws for a third party to take your money without your consent whether you like it or not? No matter how you slice it up, it just ain't right.

So now Mr. Union sell your program instead of dictate your program. Tell people why they should support your program, repesent all instead of the games you play today. If you are pure you will suceed, if you are not you will fail just as this little nugget just happened. If you represented some common beliefs instead of the one way democratic party you wouldn't be in this fix.

Peter1469
06-30-2014, 05:48 PM
I think private unions have their place, but they should not be mandatory.

Public unions should be eliminated or extremely limited.

nic34
06-30-2014, 05:54 PM
You can always just get another job..... RIGHT?

Peter1469
06-30-2014, 05:56 PM
You can always just get another job..... RIGHT?

Or have your union give lots of your union dues to get your next boss elected.

Mainecoons
06-30-2014, 05:57 PM
No, exactly why unions should not be allowed to force themselves on people as a condition of employment. PARTICULARLY for jobs paid for by taxpayers.

Blackrook
06-30-2014, 06:53 PM
Public unions should be outlawed because they create a situation where politicians are bribed to increase pay for public employees way beyond the market value for their services. People in the public sector should not be making more than people in the private sector, but that's what's happened.

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2013/09/public_sector_workers_make_mor.html

Green Arrow
06-30-2014, 08:07 PM
No, exactly why unions should not be allowed to force themselves on people as a condition of employment. PARTICULARLY for jobs paid for by taxpayers.

According to the article, every worker at a union business benefits from the union's collective bargaining efforts. Why not pay for it, if you're going to benefit?

(Note, I'm not saying I necessarily agree with that)

Green Arrow
06-30-2014, 08:07 PM
I think private unions have their place, but they should not be mandatory.

Public unions should be eliminated or extremely limited.

Could you sort of explain Harris v. Quinn?

nic34
06-30-2014, 08:11 PM
According to the article, every worker at a union business benefits from the union's collective bargaining efforts. Why not pay for it, if you're going to benefit?

(Note, I'm not saying I necessarily agree with that)

(But you are right)

What would the free marketers here want, allow both parties to "bargain" on wages, or have government set the minimum?

Hummmm?