Supreme Court hears public sector union compulsory speech case

[Stan]

  oday the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case involving whether it constitutional to require government employees who do not join their respective unions to still pay fees to the unions for the cost of negotiating and administering their employment contracts. Forty years ago, in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously […]

The post Supreme Court hears public sector union compulsory speech case appeared first on ReligiousLiberty.TV - Celebrating Liberty of Conscience.

View the full article

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

that's interesting... If I remember correctly, when I worked at OHSU in the early 1980s, everyone was required to pay union dues.  The exception was made for a number of us who objected on religious grounds.  So instead of paying union dues, an equal amount was taken out and given to a charity approved by the union.  Mine went to the Kidney Transplant Foundation.

[Gregory Matthews]

In this post, I am going to post the opening paragraphs of an article that Stan posted.  I am going to bold key parts of that article, an then comment of it.

Today the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case involving whether it constitutional to require government employees who do not join their respective unions to still pay fees to the unions for the cost of negotiating and administering their employment contracts.

Forty years ago, in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that public sector unions were legal, and that employees not participating in their unions could still be required to cover the costs of the collective bargaining and grievance procedures that affected them.  Union shop employees who did not participate would not be required to pay for ideological or political activities.

The issue before the Supreme Court now is whether non-union employees should also be exempt from paying for the costs of the collective bargaining negotiations and grievance procedures.[/quote]

[Gregory Matthews]

The following items are important to this discussion:

Who is involved:

*  This clearly covers employees of the Federal government, in general--with some exceptions such as uniformed military members.

*  I believe that further clarification is needed as to some groups of employees to include applicability to State and local government employees.

NOTE:  My response is going to be written from the standpoint of the included U. S. Federal government employees as I am well informed about those in that situation.  It should also be noted that there at specific laws that regulate labor unions for Federal employees that considerably differ from non-public employees.  Therefore, what I say may not be true for a non-public employee.

What is  involved:

* Some Federal government employees have the right to organize and belong to a Labor Union.  [NOTE:  Some such as uniformed military, and some others do not have that right.]

*  Once a labor union has won a representational right, those employees who are included in the bargaining unit, have the right to join that labor union and also the right not to join that labor union.  Their employment does not depend on any way as to whether or not they have joined the labor union.

*  Once the labor union has won the representational right, it is required to represent all members of the bargaining unit regardless of whether or not they are members of the Union.  That requirement to represent is limited to the local grievance level.  The labor union is not required to represent a non-member in an action that is taken to an Administrative Law Judge.

*  A typical labor union local may be spending several thousand dollars each month to employ the services of lawyers to advise them on individual situations.  This will include advice related to representing people who are not members of the Local and do not pay anything for their representation.  These funds came from monies paid by those who joined.

*  In addition, that Local may have invested several thousand dollars in training the non-lawyers how to represent the employees on the local grievance level.  These funds came from monies paid by those who joined.

*  When a satisfactory resolution is not reached on the local level, the next step may include going to mediation, going to arbitration, and/or going before an administrative law judge.  If it is mediation, that local person who represents the employee will have been trained by the union.  If it is mediation, the union may be required to pay a fee.  If it is going before an administrative law  judge, that union will likely have paid a fee of several thousand dollars, which it will not get back if is loses.

*  All of  the above representation, if necessary, will be provided free of all fees to the member of the union.   The non- member will likely only have the option of going before an administrative law judge.  That may result in costs of more than $70,000.  Trust me, I  know what I am talking bout.

The Issue in Question:

*  In some situations a non-public employee may be allowed to pay a fee to cover the expenses that the labor union occurs in representing that employee, but will neither be required to join the union, or to pay the full fees that members may pay.  Probably, in most cases, this fee will be about 50% to 70% of the fee paid by members.

*  The fee that Pam mentioned did not in any way pay the expenses that the union incurred on her behalf.

*   This case is simply about whether or not Federal employees, who do not join the Union, may be required to pay a fee for the service that they receive.