Ari Paul, Al Jazeera America - On June 30 the U.S. Supreme Court sent a shock wave through organized labor by agreeing to hear arguments in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, to determine whether public-sector unions could still require workers who opt out of union membership to pay some dues. The suit seeks to overturn a 1977 decision, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which held that unions could charge non-members an “agency shop” fee to cover costs related to representation in collective bargaining.
Conservatives argue that unions are inherently political, and so forcing workers to support them financially violates free speech rights. If the court’s conservative majority overturns the precedent, government workers could opt out of dues payments in droves, severely crippling the financing of public employee unions, a pivotal part of the American labor movement.
Unions argue that non-members should pay a smaller membership fee because they reap the benefits from union representation — everything from high quality health and dental plans to protections against arbitrary terminations. But last year, in ruling narrowly against unions in Harris v. Quinn, the Court indicated its interest in hearing a free speech challenge to overturn the four-decade-old precedent.
The fear of a nationwide right-to-work regime, in which unions can make no claims on any workers despite representing their interests, is not far-fetched. Even the liberal wing of the court has recently ruled against labor. And despite unions’ importance for workers’ rights, it is often difficult to convince government employees to pay their dues. Still, in some states with right-to-work laws, unions have been successful in retaining membership. In fact, recent data show that right-to-work legislation in Indiana hasn’t caused a change for unions there.
But some labor activists are bracing for a deathblow to the public sector unions, especially among lower-paid workers who in tight economic times are looking for any way to increase their take-home pay.
2 comments:
They'll probably come out against workers. Such a travesty. Our best economic times were when we had functioning unions, and companies still made money....and the income gap was not astronomical like it is today. Our unions, back then, helped make for a solid middle class. I did not one from a union family. My dad was a salesman (think Willie Loman) and my mom a public relations person rising to the level of President of the National Assoc of Hospital Public Relations Directors and being a Press Secretary to the wife of a US presidential candidate. Her retirement from her work? $147/mo. She had married a second time to a retired teacher. His pension (from the teachers union) was 15 times that and included cost of living raises. A livable retirement.
History is clear, no unions in enough strength then no first world country.
Just another third world republic in chaos without enough political strength for the common workers/consumers in a society.
Post a Comment