for some of the issues involved. Politics and law and social and economic
issues are always intermixed and interfere with one another, I have
noticed...:-). Even the death and election of a new supreme court judge can
produce major controversy and dissent. Still, that is why the USA has a
written constitution and the formal separation of powers between the executive
government, the judges and the Congress, to help prevent dictatorship by any
political party, over the rights of the US citizenry.
On 28/02/2018 11:57, Douglas Rankine wrote:
For your information:
see url: https://twitter.com/_cryptome_/status/967894426327666688
see url: https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/16-01466qp.pdf
16-1466 JANUS V. AMERICAN FEDERATION
DECISION BELOW: 851 F.3d 746
CERT. GRANTED 9/28/2017
Twice in the past five years this Court has questioned its holding in Abood v.
Detroit Board of Education
, 431 U.S. 209 (1977) that it is constitutional for a government to force its
employees to pay agency fees
to an exclusive representative for speaking and contracting with the
government over policies that affect
their profession. See Harris v. Quinn, _U.S._, _, 134 S. Ct. 2618, 2632-34
(2014);Knox v. SEIU, Local 1000
, 567 U.S. 298, _, 132 S. Ct. 2277, 2289 (2012). Last term this Court split 4
to 4 on whether to overrule
Abood. Friedrichs v. Cal. Teachers Ass'n , _U.S._, 136 S. Ct. 1083 (2016).
This case presents the same question presented in Friedrichs : should Abood be
overruled and public
sector agency fee arrangements declared unconstitutional under the First
Amendment?>>>End of Quote.
Interesting to note that the Union Closed Shop was declared Illegal in the UK
in the 1990s Trade Union Acts,
and that in companies where unions have a bargaining agreement, non-union
members do not have to pay any form of levy and enjoy the benefit of the union
agreements. Also, union members are entitled in law to have themselves removed
from paying the political levy.
Please note, that in the UK, the political levy goes to the Labour Party.
Please also note that for five years, I worked to create a union and get it
recognised. We were only a tiny minority when we first started and it was a
nerve wracking time, never knowing when we were going to get found out and
sacked. I was elected as a senior shop steward in the company for which I
worked, and a member of the negotiating committee with the company eventually,
when we had recruited enough members to be granted negotiating rights under the
law. Though I never supported the closed shop, the union did! I did, however
believe in 100% union membership in the workplace. I always reckoned that it
was a workers right to belong or not to belong to a trades union. Trade unions
are, after all, voluntary organisations.
In my view, recognising a closed shop, leads to dictatorial practices by union
officials. It also leads to disgruntlement and bad relationships amongst
employees, because the union member who is forced to join and force to pay
union dues feels hard done by and will do their best to subvert the union. If
a union member or official isn't good enough to convince their colleagues of
the benefits of becoming a member of the union, it doesn't say much for the
union, or its bargaining power. Too many paid officials of unions are more
interested in pursuing their career up the union ladder, than representing the
union members. One of the main reasons unions like the closed shop is because
it assures the wages of those union officials who get paid by the union.
I wouldn't presume to comment on what is happening in the US Labour movement
and its struggle against the international conglomerates, the home grown
corporates and individual state laws on industrial relations. I just thought
I'd let you know what the situation is in the UK. The Unions in the UK are
considerably weaker after Mrs. Thatcher finished with them, they were
completely outmanoeuvred. However, the Unions, especially the Miners Union
opened itself up to such attacks when it decided to strike without balloting
its members, and used violence on picket lines against other workers, when they
could have used non-violent, perfectly legal strategies, but their leadership
was determined to make a point, and determined to bring down the Thatcher
government by almost any means. By using those tactics they set the union and
labour movement back at least a generation, in my view.