This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/feb/26/supreme-court-debates-union-case-that-could-affect-five-million-workers

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Supreme court debates union case that could affect five million workers Supreme court debates union case that could affect 5 million workers
(about 19 hours later)
A divided supreme court sparred on Monday over a case that could undermine the financial footing of labor unions that represent government workers.A divided supreme court sparred on Monday over a case that could undermine the financial footing of labor unions that represent government workers.
The justices heard arguments in a challenge to an Illinois law that allows unions representing government employees to collect fees from workers who choose not to join. Amidst colorful, sometimes angry comments from his colleagues, Justice Neil Gorsuch asked no questions during the hour-long session. The justices heard arguments in a challenge to an Illinois law that allows unions representing government employees to collect fees from workers who choose not to join. Amid colorful, sometimes angry comments from his colleagues, Justice Neil Gorsuch asked no questions during the hour-long session.
The court split four-four the last time it considered the issue, in 2016 and following the death of justice Antonin Scalia. Gorsuch joined the court in April and has yet to weigh in on union fees. The court split four-four the last time it considered the issue, in 2016 and following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Gorsuch joined the court in April and has yet to weigh in on union fees.
Organized labor is a big supporter of Democratic candidates and interests. Unions strongly opposed Gorsuch’s nomination by Donald Trump.Organized labor is a big supporter of Democratic candidates and interests. Unions strongly opposed Gorsuch’s nomination by Donald Trump.
The unions say the outcome could affect more than five million government workers in 24 states and the District of Columbia. The unions say the outcome could affect more than 5 million government workers in 24 states and the District of Columbia.
In many respects, the arguments on Monday were a replay of 2016, when the court took up so-called fair share fees and appeared to be ready to overrule a 1997 high court decision that serves as their legal foundation. But Scalia’s death just over two years ago left the court tied, leaving a lower court ruling in favor of the fees in place.In many respects, the arguments on Monday were a replay of 2016, when the court took up so-called fair share fees and appeared to be ready to overrule a 1997 high court decision that serves as their legal foundation. But Scalia’s death just over two years ago left the court tied, leaving a lower court ruling in favor of the fees in place.
“You’re basically arguing, do away with unions,” justice Sonia Sotomayor told William Messenger, a lawyer with the National Right to Work Legal Foundation. The group is representing Illinois worker Mark Janus in his supreme court challenge. “You’re basically arguing, do away with unions,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor told William Messenger, a lawyer with the National Right to Work Legal Foundation. The group is representing the Illinois worker Mark Janus in his supreme court challenge.
On the other side, Anthony Kennedy, who has voted against unions in past related cases, scoffed at labor’s argument that there is a difference between collective bargaining over government employees’ pay and benefits and unions’ political activities, which nonmembers do not have to support. On the other side, Anthony Kennedy, who has voted against unions in past related cases, scoffed at labor’s argument that there is a difference between collective bargaining over government employees’ pay and benefits and unions’ political activities, which non-members do not have to support.
If the unions lose, will they have less political influence, Kennedy asked David Frederick, representing the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Illinois affiliate. Yes, Frederick said.If the unions lose, will they have less political influence, Kennedy asked David Frederick, representing the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Illinois affiliate. Yes, Frederick said.
“Isn’t that the end of this case?” Kennedy replied.“Isn’t that the end of this case?” Kennedy replied.
Janus says he has a constitutional right not to contribute anything to a union with which he disagrees. Janus and the conservative interests that back him contend that everything unions representing public employees do is political, including contract negotiations.Janus says he has a constitutional right not to contribute anything to a union with which he disagrees. Janus and the conservative interests that back him contend that everything unions representing public employees do is political, including contract negotiations.
The Trump administration is supporting Janus in his effort to persuade the court to overturn its 1977 ruling allowing states to require fair share fees for government employees.The Trump administration is supporting Janus in his effort to persuade the court to overturn its 1977 ruling allowing states to require fair share fees for government employees.
The unions argue that so-called fair share fees pay for collective bargaining and other work the union does on behalf of all employees, not just its members. More than half the states already have right-to-work laws banning mandatory fees but most members of public-employee unions are concentrated in states that do not, including California, New York and Illinois.The unions argue that so-called fair share fees pay for collective bargaining and other work the union does on behalf of all employees, not just its members. More than half the states already have right-to-work laws banning mandatory fees but most members of public-employee unions are concentrated in states that do not, including California, New York and Illinois.
Labor leaders fear that not only would workers who do not belong to a union stop paying fees, but that some union members might decide to stop paying dues if they could in essence get the union’s representation for free.Labor leaders fear that not only would workers who do not belong to a union stop paying fees, but that some union members might decide to stop paying dues if they could in essence get the union’s representation for free.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested it would be natural for union members to say “I would rather keep the money in my own pocket”, potentially seriously cutting union revenues.Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested it would be natural for union members to say “I would rather keep the money in my own pocket”, potentially seriously cutting union revenues.
“I submit that’s a perfectly acceptable result,” Messenger said.“I submit that’s a perfectly acceptable result,” Messenger said.
A decision is expected by late June.A decision is expected by late June.
US supreme courtUS supreme court
US unionsUS unions
IllinoisIllinois
Trump administrationTrump administration
newsnews
Share on FacebookShare on Facebook
Share on TwitterShare on Twitter
Share via EmailShare via Email
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn
Share on PinterestShare on Pinterest
Share on Google+Share on Google+
Share on WhatsAppShare on WhatsApp
Share on MessengerShare on Messenger
Reuse this contentReuse this content