Supreme Court set to deal a sharp blow to unions for teachers and public employees

[DBTrek]

Supreme Court set to deal a sharp blow to unions for teachers and public employees

The Supreme Court is set to deal a sharp blow to the unions that represent millions of teachers and other public employees, announcing Thursday it will consider striking down the mandatory fees that support collective bargaining.

The justices will hear the case of Mark Janus, an Illinois state employee who objects to paying fees to the union, which represents 35,000 state workers.

The decision, due by next June, could prove a costly setback for public sector unions in 22 states, including California, where such fees are authorized by law. Labor experts have predicted a significant percentage of employees would stop supporting their union if given a choice. The other 28 states have "right to work" laws that forbid requiring workers to join or support a union. . .

http://beta.latimes.com/politics/la-na- ... story.html

How do you know your organization sucks?
When you're like "Guys, we have to compel people to join and pay us because if that shit is optional we'd cease to exist".

Light at the end of the tunnel maybe, for public sector unions which should not exist anyway.
(When your employer is "The American People" you shouldn't be collectively bargaining to enrich yourselves at their expense. Especially when they get no representation to push back against your demands)

[apeman]

please please please please please please please please please please please please please please

[Speaker to Animals]

I bet Ginsberg is panicking right about now.

[The Conservative]

Supreme Court set to deal a sharp blow to unions for teachers and public employees

The Supreme Court is set to deal a sharp blow to the unions that represent millions of teachers and other public employees, announcing Thursday it will consider striking down the mandatory fees that support collective bargaining.

The justices will hear the case of Mark Janus, an Illinois state employee who objects to paying fees to the union, which represents 35,000 state workers.

The decision, due by next June, could prove a costly setback for public sector unions in 22 states, including California, where such fees are authorized by law. Labor experts have predicted a significant percentage of employees would stop supporting their union if given a choice. The other 28 states have "right to work" laws that forbid requiring workers to join or support a union. . .

http://beta.latimes.com/politics/la-na- ... story.html

How do you know your organization sucks?
When you're like "Guys, we have to compel people to join and pay us because if that shit is optional we'd cease to exist".

Light at the end of the tunnel maybe, for public sector unions which should not exist anyway.
(When your employer is "The American People" you shouldn't be collectively bargaining to enrich yourselves at their expense. Especially when they get no representation to push back against your demands)

Not to distract the OP, but ever noticed that the link you provided was .beta, which if we take it by today's standards, ie: beta males, etc

Now onto the OP...

School unions are some of the worst unions to ever have existed for the last 30+ years. They are one of the few unions that can waste an entire summer doing nothing, then when school is in play, they halt all education for "a raise" when in reality, it's their bosses, etc that are the real money whores.

Bue lets ignore that, and just say if this bill passes, it's a long time coming.

[Fife]

@OP topic:

Here's a sneak preview of the chuckles to come: Literally the DUMBEST Gorsuch tweet YET : Chris Hayes has sads over #SCOTUS hearing Janus case

Literally!

[clubgop]

How do you know your organization sucks?
When you're like "Guys, we have to compel people to join and pay us because if that shit is optional we'd cease to exist".

In some small defense it is the free rider problem. It is the same idea with health insurance without preconditions, why would you ever buy health insurance until you get sick, if that is the case? Ultimately they can go pound sand for all I care, but the argument is sound.

[apeman]

@OP topic:

Here's a sneak preview of the chuckles to come: Literally the DUMBEST Gorsuch tweet YET : Chris Hayes has sads over #SCOTUS hearing Janus case

Literally!

[Fife]

The whole term looks like it is brimming with intrigue.

Some epic stuff in the works:

A Supreme Court Term for the Ages

Even if the ‘travel ban’ doesn’t appear, a slew of major cases will make court-watching great again.

(The links with the case names below go to SCOTUSBlog, where there are tons of commentary links on each case page if you are interested.)

FIRST AMENDMENT:

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

One of the most significant decisions will undoubtedly come in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which pits religious liberty and freedom of conscience against anti-discrimination laws. This case arose when a baker, Jack Phillips, refused to bake a cake to celebrate the nuptials of Charlie Craig and David Mullins, prompting a complaint to local authorities. Phillips’s decision, the complaint alleged, violated Colorado’s law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Phillips, for his part, argued that he has no objection to serving gay customers, but instead objects to participating in an event that is contrary to his religious beliefs. Being forced to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, Phillips maintains, both requires him to violate his religious conscience and violates his First Amendment right against forced expression.

EQUAL PROTECTION:

Gill v. Whitford

Perhaps the most important case the Court will hear this term (at least according to Justice Ginsburg, who keeps commenting on it) is Gill v. Whitford, in which the Supreme Court will again consider whether partisan gerrymandering of legislative districts violates the Equal Protection Clause. In the past, the Court has held that such claims represent nonjusticiable “political questions” because they cannot be resolved by judicially discoverable and manageable standards, which is a fancy way of saying that judges have no real way to determine when political processes become too political. Justice Kennedy, however, has also suggested he’s open to reconsidering that view, if the right theory is presented in the right case.

FIRST AMENDMENT:

Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31

See OP.

On Thursday, the Court announced it would hear Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, revisiting the constitutionality of mandatory union “agency fees” for public-sector employees. Combined with other labor-law cases already on the Court’s docket, Janus creates the real possibility this could be a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad term for organized labor, public-sector unions in particular.

FEDERALISM:

Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association

New Jersey governor Chris Christie’s efforts to obtain a plum appointment in the Trump administration may have come to naught, but his petition for certiorari was granted by the Supreme Court in Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, potentially the most important federalism case of the term. Under the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), states may not “authorize” gambling on amateur or professional sports events. (Four states — Delaware, Montana, Nevada, and Oregon — are exempted under a grandfather clause.) Despite PASPA, New Jersey lawmakers authorized sports betting under state law, prompting the NCAA and other sports associations to sue. There’s no dispute that, under current law, the federal government may prohibit sports betting directly. Current interpretations of the Commerce Clause clearly reach this far. At issue in Christie is something slightly different: Whether federal law can require that states maintain their own pre-existing prohibitions on sports betting, as PAPSA seems to. If the justices agree, this case could have significant implications for other contemporary federalism disputes, including those over marijuana and “sanctuary cities,” where states likewise wish to eliminate state-level prohibitions on activity prohibited under federal law.

FOURTH AMENDMENT (Mosaic Theory, Gorsuch? PLEASE):

Carpenter v. United States

The biggest criminal-procedure case of the term, Carpenter v. United States, could also have far-reaching implications. Carpenter concerns whether police may obtain cell-site records, which show the general location of cell phones, without a warrant. As a general matter, the police are free to obtain information about suspects from third parties, such as where an eyewitness may have seen a suspect and what the suspect was doing. Therefore, the government argues, they should be able to get equivalent information from cell-phone companies. Yet given the pervasiveness of electronics, this could give the government access to extensive information about the whereabouts of large numbers of private citizens. As with prior cases about cell-phone searches and the use of GPS devices by police, Carpenter will force the justices to consider how traditional Fourth Amendment rules apply to modern technology.

[Fife]

Who is so hyped up about Janus that he/she/they instantly know about when DB gets re-woke on Mr. Justice Repo-Man's "Hello World" moment upcoming?

Yer boy THAT'S WHO.

viewtopic.php?f=63&t=3227&p=155917#p155909

[Fife]

The whole term looks like it is brimming with intrigue.

Some epic stuff in the works:

FEDERALISM:

Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association

New Jersey governor Chris Christie’s efforts to obtain a plum appointment in the Trump administration may have come to naught, but his petition for certiorari was granted by the Supreme Court in Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, potentially the most important federalism case of the term. Under the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), states may not “authorize” gambling on amateur or professional sports events. (Four states — Delaware, Montana, Nevada, and Oregon — are exempted under a grandfather clause.) Despite PASPA, New Jersey lawmakers authorized sports betting under state law, prompting the NCAA and other sports associations to sue. There’s no dispute that, under current law, the federal government may prohibit sports betting directly. Current interpretations of the Commerce Clause clearly reach this far. At issue in Christie is something slightly different: Whether federal law can require that states maintain their own pre-existing prohibitions on sports betting, as PAPSA seems to. If the justices agree, this case could have significant implications for other contemporary federalism disputes, including those over marijuana and “sanctuary cities,” where states likewise wish to eliminate state-level prohibitions on activity prohibited under federal law.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 6_dbfi.pdf