I have a friend that works retail that calls it "wage slave day."
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Ventura
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2015 2:51 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: A Labor Day Worry: The Court's Right-Wingers
Are Sharpening Their Knives
Maybe we should call it exploitation day.
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Miriam Vieni
Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2015 11:01 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] A Labor Day Worry: The Court's Right-Wingers Are
Sharpening Their Knives
A Labor Day Worry: The Court's Right-Wingers Are Sharpening Their Knives
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_labor_day_worry_the_courts_right-winge
rs_are_sharpening_20150905/
Posted on Sep 5, 2015
By Bill Blum
U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. (Nati Harnik / AP) We
don't officially celebrate International Workers' Day on May 1 in this
country, even though the worldwide holiday was originated to memorialize the
Chicago Haymarket Square Riot of 1886 and the long and often bloody movement
waged by American workers to establish the eight-hour workday. Instead, we
hold a watered-down substitute, observing Labor Day on the first Monday of
September. Each year, the commemoration grows more tepid and disconnected
from the historical and current struggles of working people.
If the U.S. Supreme Court's dominant Republican majority has its way when
the panel's new term commences in October, we might as well dispense with
the holiday altogether, or at least drop the term "labor" from its title.
Among the most important cases the court will consider when it reconvenes is
Friedrichs v. California Teachers, which poses what some observers have
called an "existential threat" to public unions and by extension to the
entire labor movement.
At issue in Friedrichs is the right of public sector unions to collect
limited "fair-share" fees in lieu of full formal dues from nonunion workers
to defray the costs of collective bargaining that benefits all employees. A
decision against the teachers association would have the potential to
bankrupt government employee unions and turn the nation's entire public
sector into one enormous "right-to-work" jurisdiction.
Even before agreeing to hear Friedrichs, the Supreme Court under the
leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts had amassed a staggering résumé of
anti-worker decisions. As a study published in January by The Nation
explains, the Roberts court has issued rulings that have restricted
gender-based discrimination and class-action lawsuits against corporations;
curbed age discrimination claims; limited the availability of overtime pay;
redefined the term "supervisor" to allow employers to avoid liability for
harassment; and made it more difficult for employees to prosecute workplace
retaliation grievances.
Over the past few years, the court's conservative majority has expressed a
special animus against public employee unions, displayed not just in its
interpretation of state and federal labor statutes but in a novel and
twisted interpretation of the First Amendment. It's complicated, but in a
nutshell, the conservative legal theory works like this:
Under current law, no one can be forced to join a union, even one that has
been elected by a majority of workers to negotiate on their behalf. In
non-right-to-work states, however, unions nonetheless can collect mandatory
fair-share fees from workers who want to keep their jobs without becoming
union members. Typically, dissenting nonunion workers are billed for full
regular union dues, but they have the right to "opt out" of making full
payments, remitting instead only the fair-share fees that are needed to help
the union meet expenses for collective bargaining. Fair-share fees (also
called "agency" fees in reference to the union's status as the sole agent
authorized to act on bargaining) cannot be used to pay for other union
expenses, such as contributions to political campaigns and most lobbying.
In a landmark 1977 decision dealing with government unions, one handed down
during a more labor-friendly era in the court's history-Abood v. Detroit
Board of Education-the justices upheld the constitutionality of fair-share
fee systems.
But the Roberts court, operating in a new era of hostile anti-worker
judicial activism, has steadily chipped away at the Abood rule. Starting in
2012 with its opinion in Knox v. SEIU and continuing with its 2014 decision
in Harris v. Quinn, the court's five Republican appointees have emphasized
that the payment of union dues by public employees is a form of political
speech subject to the constraints of the First Amendment because public
unions negotiate contracts with governmental entities and such contracts by
definition affect public policies and the spending of taxpayer money.
The First Amendment, they reason (and here is where the twist sets in),
protects not only the affirmative right to speak but also the passive right
not to be compelled to speak or compelled to endorse the offending speech or
acts of other people or groups. Requiring dissenting employees to pay fees
to a union they don't want to join, the analysis continues, amounts to such
compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment.
In the Knox case, the conservative justices took a big first step toward
implementing their analysis in a class action brought by a group of
dissenting nonunion state workers against California's largest public worker
group, the Service Employees International Union. The dissenting workers
objected to a special midyear dues assessment that SEIU, Local 1000, had
mailed to all employees (union and nonunion), imposing a small levy on their
paychecks to help defeat two voter initiatives promoted by then-Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger and the state's Republican leadership. One of the
initiatives, both of which had qualified for the 2005 California ballot,
aimed at capping overall state spending, and the other required unions to
obtain written approval from members before they could use the members' dues
for political purposes.
Although both initiatives eventually were defeated, and the local offered to
refund the levy to nonunion members upon request, the plaintiffs persisted
with their lawsuit all the way to the Supreme Court, where they found a
receptive audience. In a majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito,
and joined by Alito's four Republican brethren, the court held that the
midyear special assessment ran afoul of the First Amendment as to the
nonunion members. Instead of being required to opt out of paying the special
assessment after the fact and waiting for a refund, the court said, the
nonunion workers should not have been required to pay the special assessment
in advance. Rather, they should have been accorded the right to
affirmatively consent, or "opt in," to paying the assessment if they were so
inclined.
Fortunately, Alito's Knox opinion didn't explicitly overturn Abood, and it
left the traditional opt-out procedures for regular annual dues intact. In
the Harris case two years later, in another 5-4 majority opinion penned by
Alito, the court again came close to reversing Abood. The ruling came in a
lawsuit involving an Illinois SEIU local brought by a group of home care
attendants who did not want to join the union or pay fair-share fees. The
court managed to sidestep Abood once more only by declaring that the home
care workers were not really government employees and thus had no obligation
to remit any kind of union dues.
The Friedrichs case presents Alito and his cronies with a third chance to do
away with Abood and the entire mandatory fair-share system in the public
sector nationwide, once and for all. The plaintiffs, including lead litigant
Rebecca Friedrichs of Orange County, are 10 anti-union California
schoolteachers and the Christian Educators Association International.
Although the teachers are clearly government employees and reap the wage,
retirement and health insurance benefits secured by union contracts, they
oppose fair-share fees of any kind.
Unlike the plaintiffs in Knox and Harris, who were represented by the
National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation Inc., the Friedrichs group
is represented by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Individual Rights,
an ultra-right-wing legal outfit that has made a name for itself in lawsuits
opposing affirmative action, the Voting Rights Act and Obamacare, among
other matters. Though the CIR handles much of its docket on its own, it has
teamed up as co-counsel on Friedrichs with conservative super-lawyer Michael
Carvin of the powerful Jones Day law firm.
But no matter who is directing Friedrichs, the aim of the case is the same
as the goal previously sought in Knox and Harris-the crippling of public
sector unions, both as bargaining agents for government workers and as
sources of political funding and donations for liberal political candidates
and campaigns.
It's easy to understand the endgame that the American right is pursuing in
such cases. Public unions are the last bastion of organized labor in
America. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the percentage of
unionized wage and salary workers in the U.S. dropped to 11.1 percent in
2014 from 20.1 percent in 1983. The unionization rate in the private sector
stands at an abysmal 6.6 percent. The public sector, by contrast, boasts a
unionization rate of 35.7 percent.
If the recent labor strife in Wisconsin is any bellwether, a plaintiffs'
victory in Friedrichs could be disastrous. In the aftermath of Gov. Scott
Walker's 2011 assault on public unions and the state's subsequent
implementation of right-to-work policies, the declines in public union
membership and dues collected have been enormous in Wisconsin, according to
The Washington Examiner. The Madison local of the American Federation of
State County and Municipal Employees has lost 18,000 of its previous 32,000
members and has seen its annual revenue fall from $10 million to $5.5
million.
The lesson thus is simple: Kill the fair-share regime and you kill public
sector unions. Kill public sector unions and you kill off the labor movement
as a whole.
Will the Supreme Court finally implement the lesson plan? We'll know in the
coming months.
From the Haymarket Riot to the present, it's been a bumpy ride for American
workers. In the meantime, I'm sure that Justice Alito and his black-robed
compatriots will join me in wishing you happy Labor Day.
http://www.truthdig.com/ http://www.truthdig.com/
A Labor Day Worry: The Court's Right-Wingers Are Sharpening Their Knives
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_labor_day_worry_the_courts_right-winge
rs_are_sharpening_20150905/
Posted on Sep 5, 2015
By Bill Blum
U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. (Nati Harnik / AP)
We don't officially celebrate International Workers' Day on May 1 in this
country, even though the worldwide holiday was originated to memorialize the
Chicago Haymarket Square Riot of 1886 and the long and often bloody movement
waged by American workers to establish the eight-hour workday. Instead, we
hold a watered-down substitute, observing Labor Day on the first Monday of
September. Each year, the commemoration grows more tepid and disconnected
from the historical and current struggles of working people.
If the U.S. Supreme Court's dominant Republican majority has its way when
the panel's new term commences in October, we might as well dispense with
the holiday altogether, or at least drop the term "labor" from its title.
Among the most important cases the court will consider when it reconvenes is
Friedrichs v. California Teachers, which poses what some observers have
called an "existential threat" to public unions and by extension to the
entire labor movement.
At issue in Friedrichs is the right of public sector unions to collect
limited "fair-share" fees in lieu of full formal dues from nonunion workers
to defray the costs of collective bargaining that benefits all employees. A
decision against the teachers association would have the potential to
bankrupt government employee unions and turn the nation's entire public
sector into one enormous "right-to-work" jurisdiction.
Even before agreeing to hear Friedrichs, the Supreme Court under the
leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts had amassed a staggering résumé of
anti-worker decisions. As a study published in January by The Nation
explains, the Roberts court has issued rulings that have restricted
gender-based discrimination and class-action lawsuits against corporations;
curbed age discrimination claims; limited the availability of overtime pay;
redefined the term "supervisor" to allow employers to avoid liability for
harassment; and made it more difficult for employees to prosecute workplace
retaliation grievances.
Over the past few years, the court's conservative majority has expressed a
special animus against public employee unions, displayed not just in its
interpretation of state and federal labor statutes but in a novel and
twisted interpretation of the First Amendment. It's complicated, but in a
nutshell, the conservative legal theory works like this:
Under current law, no one can be forced to join a union, even one that has
been elected by a majority of workers to negotiate on their behalf. In
non-right-to-work states, however, unions nonetheless can collect mandatory
fair-share fees from workers who want to keep their jobs without becoming
union members. Typically, dissenting nonunion workers are billed for full
regular union dues, but they have the right to "opt out" of making full
payments, remitting instead only the fair-share fees that are needed to help
the union meet expenses for collective bargaining. Fair-share fees (also
called "agency" fees in reference to the union's status as the sole agent
authorized to act on bargaining) cannot be used to pay for other union
expenses, such as contributions to political campaigns and most lobbying.
In a landmark 1977 decision dealing with government unions, one handed down
during a more labor-friendly era in the court's history-Abood v. Detroit
Board of Education-the justices upheld the constitutionality of fair-share
fee systems.
But the Roberts court, operating in a new era of hostile anti-worker
judicial activism, has steadily chipped away at the Abood rule. Starting in
2012 with its opinion in Knox v. SEIU and continuing with its 2014 decision
in Harris v. Quinn, the court's five Republican appointees have emphasized
that the payment of union dues by public employees is a form of political
speech subject to the constraints of the First Amendment because public
unions negotiate contracts with governmental entities and such contracts by
definition affect public policies and the spending of taxpayer money.
The First Amendment, they reason (and here is where the twist sets in),
protects not only the affirmative right to speak but also the passive right
not to be compelled to speak or compelled to endorse the offending speech or
acts of other people or groups. Requiring dissenting employees to pay fees
to a union they don't want to join, the analysis continues, amounts to such
compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment.
In the Knox case, the conservative justices took a big first step toward
implementing their analysis in a class action brought by a group of
dissenting nonunion state workers against California's largest public worker
group, the Service Employees International Union. The dissenting workers
objected to a special midyear dues assessment that SEIU, Local 1000, had
mailed to all employees (union and nonunion), imposing a small levy on their
paychecks to help defeat two voter initiatives promoted by then-Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger and the state's Republican leadership. One of the
initiatives, both of which had qualified for the 2005 California ballot,
aimed at capping overall state spending, and the other required unions to
obtain written approval from members before they could use the members' dues
for political purposes.
Although both initiatives eventually were defeated, and the local offered to
refund the levy to nonunion members upon request, the plaintiffs persisted
with their lawsuit all the way to the Supreme Court, where they found a
receptive audience. In a majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito,
and joined by Alito's four Republican brethren, the court held that the
midyear special assessment ran afoul of the First Amendment as to the
nonunion members. Instead of being required to opt out of paying the special
assessment after the fact and waiting for a refund, the court said, the
nonunion workers should not have been required to pay the special assessment
in advance. Rather, they should have been accorded the right to
affirmatively consent, or "opt in," to paying the assessment if they were so
inclined.
Fortunately, Alito's Knox opinion didn't explicitly overturn Abood, and it
left the traditional opt-out procedures for regular annual dues intact. In
the Harris case two years later, in another 5-4 majority opinion penned by
Alito, the court again came close to reversing Abood. The ruling came in a
lawsuit involving an Illinois SEIU local brought by a group of home care
attendants who did not want to join the union or pay fair-share fees. The
court managed to sidestep Abood once more only by declaring that the home
care workers were not really government employees and thus had no obligation
to remit any kind of union dues.
The Friedrichs case presents Alito and his cronies with a third chance to do
away with Abood and the entire mandatory fair-share system in the public
sector nationwide, once and for all. The plaintiffs, including lead litigant
Rebecca Friedrichs of Orange County, are 10 anti-union California
schoolteachers and the Christian Educators Association International.
Although the teachers are clearly government employees and reap the wage,
retirement and health insurance benefits secured by union contracts, they
oppose fair-share fees of any kind.
Unlike the plaintiffs in Knox and Harris, who were represented by the
National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation Inc., the Friedrichs group
is represented by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Individual Rights,
an ultra-right-wing legal outfit that has made a name for itself in lawsuits
opposing affirmative action, the Voting Rights Act and Obamacare, among
other matters. Though the CIR handles much of its docket on its own, it has
teamed up as co-counsel on Friedrichs with conservative super-lawyer Michael
Carvin of the powerful Jones Day law firm.
But no matter who is directing Friedrichs, the aim of the case is the same
as the goal previously sought in Knox and Harris-the crippling of public
sector unions, both as bargaining agents for government workers and as
sources of political funding and donations for liberal political candidates
and campaigns.
It's easy to understand the endgame that the American right is pursuing in
such cases. Public unions are the last bastion of organized labor in
America. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the percentage of
unionized wage and salary workers in the U.S. dropped to 11.1 percent in
2014 from 20.1 percent in 1983. The unionization rate in the private sector
stands at an abysmal 6.6 percent. The public sector, by contrast, boasts a
unionization rate of 35.7 percent.
If the recent labor strife in Wisconsin is any bellwether, a plaintiffs'
victory in Friedrichs could be disastrous. In the aftermath of Gov. Scott
Walker's 2011 assault on public unions and the state's subsequent
implementation of right-to-work policies, the declines in public union
membership and dues collected have been enormous in Wisconsin, according to
The Washington Examiner. The Madison local of the American Federation of
State County and Municipal Employees has lost 18,000 of its previous 32,000
members and has seen its annual revenue fall from $10 million to $5.5
million.
The lesson thus is simple: Kill the fair-share regime and you kill public
sector unions. Kill public sector unions and you kill off the labor movement
as a whole.
Will the Supreme Court finally implement the lesson plan? We'll know in the
coming months.
From the Haymarket Riot to the present, it's been a bumpy ride for American
workers. In the meantime, I'm sure that Justice Alito and his black-robed
compatriots will join me in wishing you happy Labor Day.
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/canada_clears_way_for_ecuadorian
_case_against_chevron_over_amazon_chernobyl/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/canada_clears_way_for_ecuadorian
_case_against_chevron_over_amazon_chernobyl/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/canada_clears_way_for_ecuadorian
_case_against_chevron_over_amazon_chernobyl/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/europe_can_accommodate_migrants_
but_politicians_dont_want_them_20150905/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/europe_can_accommodate_migrants_
but_politicians_dont_want_them_20150905/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/europe_can_accommodate_migrants_
but_politicians_dont_want_them_20150905/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_labor_day_worry_the_courts_right-winge
rs_are_sharpening_20150905/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_labor_day_worry_the_courts_right-winge
rs_are_sharpening_20150905/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_labor_day_worry_the_courts_right-winge
rs_are_sharpening_20150905/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/2000_cases_may_be_overturned_bec
ause_of_police_and_prosecutor_20150905/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/2000_cases_may_be_overturned_bec
ause_of_police_and_prosecutor_20150905/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/2000_cases_may_be_overturned_bec
ause_of_police_and_prosecutor_20150905/ http://www.truthdig.com/
http://www.truthdig.com/
http://www.truthdig.com/about/http://www.truthdig.com/contact/http://www.tru
thdig.com/about/advertising/http://www.truthdig.com/user_agreement/http://ww
w.truthdig.com/privacy_policy/http://www.truthdig.com/about/comment_policy/
© 2015 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
http://www.hopstudios.com/
http://support.truthdig.com/signup_page/subscribe
http://support.truthdig.com/signup_page/subscribe
http://www.facebook.com/truthdighttp://twitter.com/intent/follow?source=foll
owbutton&variant=1.0&screen_name=truthdighttps://plus.google.com/+truthdight
tp://www.linkedin.com/company/truthdighttp://truthdig.tumblr.com/http://www.
truthdig.com/connect
