As a Canadian, I look upon my American neighbours today with significant envy thanks to the decision of the majority of the SCOTUS in JANUS v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL.
Here's a link to the decision for those with more time on their hands than me (I just read the headnote and some media coverage about it as it is 83 pages):
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17...cle_inline
The WSJ article is a fair summation of the majority and the dissent.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-cou...1530108179
Quote:Quote:
The 5-4 vote, along conservative-liberal lines, on Wednesday overruled a 1977 precedent that had fueled the growth of public-sector unionization even as representation has withered in private industry. More than one-third of public employees are unionized, compared with just 6.5% of those in the private sector, according to a January report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The impact of the ruling is likely to stretch far beyond the workplace, sapping resources from unions such as the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and the National Education Association that have provided funds, resources and activists largely in support of Democratic candidates. In the 2016 election cycle, public-sector unions spent $64.6 million on political activities, and 90% of that went to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The largest spenders were the nation’s two biggest teachers’ unions and AFSCME.
...
Justice Samuel Alito, whose opinions have shaped the court’s turn against public-sector unions, wrote for the majority.
“Compelling individuals to mouth support for views they find objectionable,” even if they are part of collective bargaining that benefits that employee, affronts a “cardinal constitutional command,” he wrote. Justice Alito quoted Justice Robert Jackson’s 1943 opinion forbidding mandatory recitation of the flag salute in public school: the government may not “force citizens to confess by word or act” any opinion.
...
For the court’s liberals, the decision Wednesday—the final day of this term—capped a term replete with disappointment.
“There’s no sugarcoating today’s opinion,” Justice Elena Kagan said from the bench. The majority, acting as “black-robed rulers overriding citizens’ choices,” had stopped “the American people, acting through their state and local officials, from making important choices about workplace governance,” she said.
Joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Kagan accused the majority of “weaponizing the First Amendment, in a way that unleashes judges, now and in the future, to intervene in economic and regulatory policy.”
Some 20 states, principally in liberal-leaning regions such as the Northeast and the Pacific Coast, permit government agencies to reach union-security agreements with labor organizations, requiring employees within a bargaining unit either to join the union or pay it a fee for core services, such as negotiating and enforcing contracts.
Unions, which call such charges “fair-share fees,” say they are necessary to prevent free riders—employees who are happy to receive the raises, benefits and job security a union contract offers but prefer to let their co-workers foot the bill.
Justice Kagan's dissent also laments that public sector unions are going to find it difficult to raise the money they "need" without being able to force it upon non-members working in the same industry as members.
As a small businessman, this made me chuckle. If the only way you can convince people to pay for your product or services is to force them to pay you using the power of the state, maybe your product or services should SUCK LESS?
In any event, back to my original point, our Supreme Court of Canada ruled back in 1991 that forced union dues against members or non-members alike did NOT infringe our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As such, our unions, particularly the public sector ones, have spend the last 30 years engaged in all kinds of leftist political activism, including very heavily in elections (most notably Ontario in 2014 and Federally in 2015). It would sure be lovely if they had less money to go sticking their noses in political activism - something US public sector unions are about to face in a big way.
Gorsuch may not be everyone's favourite, but does anyone here actually think these last swaths of 5-4 rulings would have all been the same if Garland were there instead?
![[Image: highfive.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/new/highfive.gif)
