POLITICS‎ > ‎

In a blow to public sector unions, Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old precedent



 Global Leaders in Math Education


http://www.cinfoshare.org/education/aplus-learning-center-tutoring-group-advisory-services

APLUS教学中心 | 一对一辅导服务中心 | 申请咨询顾问中心



6/28/2018

In a blow to public sector unions, Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old precedent

  • The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Wednesday in Janus v. AFSCME that nonunion workers cannot be forced to pay fees to public sector unions.
  • The case concerns whether public employees can be forced to pay so-called agency fees to fund the work of public sector unions.
  • Experts said that a ruling in favor of Janus would be the most significant court decision affecting collective bargaining rights in decades.
Tucker Higgins | @tuckerhiggins

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Wednesday in Janus v. AFSCME that nonunion workers cannot be forced to pay fees to public sector unions.

The case, one of the most hotly anticipated of the term, is the second in two days to hand a major victory to conservatives, following Tuesday's ruling by the high court that President Donald Trump's travel ban is constitutional. Some experts had said a finding in favor of the plaintiff, Mark Janus, would be the most significant court decision affecting collective bargaining in decades.

Janus, an employee at the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, asked the court last summer to overrule a 40-year-old Supreme Court decision. It found that public sector unions could require employees affected by their negotiations to pay so-called agency fees, which have also been called "fair share fees."

Those fees, approved by the court in the 1977 case Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, cover collective bargaining costs, such as contract negotiations, but are meant to exclude political advocacy.

Janus argued his $45 monthly fee to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees was unconstitutional. He said that the fees infringed on his First Amendment rights, and that, in the case of public employees whose contract negotiations are with the government, the fees were a form of political advocacy.

The court on Wednesday agreed with Janus' argument.

"Compelling individuals to mouth support for views they find objectionable violates that cardinal constitutional command, and in most contexts, any such effort would be universally condemned," wrote Justice Samuel Alito, who authored the court's opinion in the case.

Trump hailed the ruling immediately after it was handed down. In a post on Twitter, the president wrote the decision was a "loss for the coffers of the Democrats."


Supreme Court rules in favor of non-union workers who are now, as an example, able to support a candidate of his or her choice without having those who control the Union deciding for them. Big loss for the coffers of the Democrats!


The court dismissed the union's argument that agency fees prevented free-riding from employees who benefit from the union's negotiations. AFSCME argued that, because it was obligated by law to represent the interests of both union and nonunion members, the fees were a way for employees to pay their fair share for contact negotiations from which they benefited.

Avoiding free-riders, Alito wrote, "is not a compelling interest."

"Many private groups speak out with the objective of obtaining government action that will have the effect of benefiting nonmembers," he wrote. "May all those who are thought to benefit from such efforts be compelled to subsidize this speech?"

"There is no doubt that this decision profoundly impacts whether public sector unions will exist in the future," said Lauren Novak, a partner at the law firm Schiff Hardin who has represented both labor unions and employers. "Without the ability to collect fair share fees, many may not survive."

Labor activists and unions immediately decried the court's ruling.

“Today’s Supreme Court Janus decision is yet another effort to put obstacles in front of working men and women to join collectively behind the power of a unified voice," UAW President Gary Jones said in a statement Wednesday. "To be clear, labor will survive. But to be equally clear, our elections do matter, as the appointment of conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch by the Republican-led Senate left little doubt about the outcome of this decision. The Janus decision is just another barrier and another attack on working men and women."

The case is the third in five years on the question of fair share fees to come before the Supreme Court. In 2014, the question came to the high court in Harris v. Quinn, but the justices declined to answer the central question over agency fees' constitutionality, and instead ruled 5-4 that the petitioners in the case were not public employees.

In 2016, the court issued a one sentence opinion on Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association that left the question open.

In a harshly worded dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that by overturning Abood, the court was improperly disrespecting established precedent. She wrote that the decision "prevents the American people, acting through their state and local officials, from making important choices about workplace governance."

"And it does so by weaponizing the First Amendment, in a way that unleashes judges, now and in the future, to intervene in economic and regulatory policy," Kagan wrote. Kagan's dissent was joined by the court's liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor.

Correction: Mark Janus is an employee at the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services. An earlier version misstated the department's name.





Supreme Court delivers major blow to unions


Published on Jun 27, 2018

Justices ruled against public employee unions in the case of an Illinois government employee who didn't want to fork over union fees. Mark Janus and his attorney share the story on 'Fox News @ Night.'




6/28/2018

最高法院裁定:政府工會強收會費 違憲

(World Journal) 特派員黃惠玲╱綜合報導

伊利諾州政府雇員詹尼斯控告「美國各級政府員工聯盟」案,聯邦最高法院裁定,伊州政府部門工會無權強迫雇員繳交會費。(美聯社)伊利諾州政府雇員詹尼斯控告「美國各級政府員工聯盟」案,聯邦最高法院裁定,伊州政府部門工會無權強迫雇員繳交會費。(美聯社)

伊利諾州政府雇員詹尼斯(Mark Janus)控告「美國各級政府員工聯盟」(American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFSCME)案(Janus vs. AFSCME),27日由聯邦最高法院裁定,伊州政府部門工會無權強迫雇員繳交會費。美國其他21個州,訂定法律要求向包括未加入工會的公職人員收取會費,預料將受到影響。

2016年一名南卡羅來納州的教師,以「言論自由」為由,拒絕繳交每年650元的教師工會費用,案件進入最高法院,由於大法官史卡里亞(Antonin Scalia)猝死,最後4比4,只好遵照先前法院裁決,駁回訴訟。

詹尼斯去年以此問題,把「美國各級政府員工聯盟」告上法庭,稱州府每月要從他的工資中扣除45元作為工會會費,但他並不認可工會的政治立場,工會無權強制他繳會費。此案幾經周折,最後上達聯邦最高法院。

支持者認為,要求非會員繳納會費的做法違反美國憲法;反對者則指出,非會員繳納會費合理合法,因為他們和會員一樣,都從工會的集體談判中獲益,因此必須「公平均攤」(fair share fees)。

最高法院以5比4的投票結果,主張政府工會強制收取會費,違反「第一修正案」的言論自由權利。有關政府雇員必須強制繳交工會會費的規定,從1977年開始就有多起向最高法院提告的案例,數十年來,這項爭議,更演變為共和黨傾向保守的法律團隊,與民主黨為主的政府機構工會聯盟間的對抗。

由於「美國各級政府員工聯盟」敗訴,此案恐成為判例,全美政府部門工會因此非常擔心,一旦不繳納會費的權利得到承認,工會將失去大筆資金,他們代表政府雇員與政府進行談判的能力也會隨著大打折扣。這也意味著,此裁決可能動搖工會的財務結構,且會破壞工會的穩定性。

支持詹尼斯的伊利諾州州長朗納(Bruce Rauner)27日也赴華府關切,該裁決被稱為共和黨籍的朗納重大勝利。朗納2015年就任州長後,曾下行政令,允許州府員工有權不交工會會費。

原文链接>>




6/28/2018

學者預測:有錢才有權 教師工會將被削弱
(World Journal) 特派員黃惠玲╱綜合報導

聯邦最高法院27日裁定所有公務員工會,都不得向非會員收取代理費,使教師工會受到重大打擊,可能因此失去多達三分之一會員和經費。圖為美國教師工會主席溫加頓在一項活動中發表談話。(Getty Images)聯邦最高法院27日裁定所有公務員工會,都不得向非會員收取代理費,使教師工會受到重大打擊,可能因此失去多達三分之一會員和經費。圖為美國教師工會主席溫加頓在一項活動中發表談話。(Getty Images)

聯邦最高法院27日裁定所有公務員工會,都不得向非會員收取代理費,使教師工會受到重大打擊,可能因此失去多達三分之一會員和經費;教師工會打算削減預算和減少會議之類的活動來因應。

「紐約時報」報導,工會會員繳會費是理所當然,而工會也向非會員收取代理費,作為代表他們與資方談判合約和爭議的費用。目前支付代理費的老師,有六成打算不再付這費用。

史丹福大學政治學教授莫伊說,會員和金錢是政治力量所在,而高院的裁決將削弱全國各地教師工會的政治力量。

公務員工會多年前就開始受到攻擊。愛阿華、密西根和威斯康辛等州都通過法律,企圖削弱工會,工會會員也不斷減少,連在工會繼續代表公務員談判合約的地方也是如此。一些州也立法禁止收代理費。

美國的380萬名公立學校教師,現有大約70%參加工會或專業協會。規模最大的「全國教育協會」(National Education Association)說,高院的裁決可能使其失去多達20萬名會員,一年3億6600萬元的預算也可能減少2800萬元。

該協會正準備積極爭取新的會員,尤其是對工會沒有效忠意識的年輕老師。不過,它無意遏制向來支持民主黨和自由派團體的政治活動,包括動員教師在今秋期中選舉踴躍投票。

凱托協會的教育自由中心說,高院的裁決推翻了強迫教師為工會的政治議程出錢的不公平做法,使教師能夠拒絕支持他們不同意的言論或政治活動。

許多教師對工會領袖對他們關心的問題毫無反應也感到氣憤。今年有六個州的教師發動罷工,都是由基層教師而非工會領袖推動。

西維吉尼亞州教師罷工活動領導人說,公務員擁有集體談判力量並准許收代理費的州,通常教師薪資較高,學校經費也較充裕。

但是,一個參加罷工的教師說,許多年輕教師不參加工會,因為他們待遇很低,必須能省即省。






Hannity: The political battle over Trump's SCOTUS nominee

Published on Jun 27, 2018

A history lesson of how low the Democrats will go to malign the next Supreme Court nominee.











https://sites.google.com/a/cinfoshare.org/cis/education/prep-with-jen








Principal, 
Tel: (301)906-6889; 
(240)912-6290
Licensed in MD, VA, DC, PA 
WeChat ID: sunnychenyuqing
NMLS # 1220187


HAN, Liu, CPA | 韩柳
President, Principal Loan Consultant, Leader Funding, Inc.
C: 301-660-3399; 703-655-6161
Email: liu.han@leaderfunding.com
Wechat ID: Willow6621
NMLS # 208136


电话: (240) 784-6645


RockvilleMD 
Phone: 301-366-3497

FOTILE Range Hoods


专业冷暖系統 MAJOR.HVAC
Simon Lin


Comments