Disir
Platinum Member
- Sep 30, 2011
- 28,003
- 9,608
- 910
Rebecca Friedrichs and other California teachers have given the majority a clear chance to overrule the precedent. “Every individual should have the right to decide” which organization she supports, said Friedrichs, a third-grade teacher from Anaheim whose case is championed by conservative legal organizations.
Being excused from paying for the union’s political activities is not enough, she said. Public-employee union negotiations necessarily affect public policy decisions on government spending and taxes and issues such as seniority and educational policy.
Labor leaders call the challenge a “radical” attack on public-employee unions, one of the strongest segments of the organized labor movement. Laura Juran, a lawyer for the California Teachers Association, said teachers who disagree with the union’s views “are perfectly free to speak as citizens” to try to influence government decisions.
The partisan significance of the case is clear. Public-employee unions have become a major player in Democratic politics, generating campaign contributions and on-the-ground support for candidates. At the same time, disputes between the unions and Republican governors have become frequent and bitter.
The justices acknowledged the partisan stakes during oral arguments in the 2014 case. Justice Elena Kagan mentioned the tensions that flared in Wisconsin after Gov. Scott Walker (R) moved to curtail union rights and union members led an unsuccessful recall attempt. Nevertheless, she defended the current system in which it is up to states to decide whether “agency shop fees” are mandatory.
Alito, in the same argument, mentioned how some politicians are indebted to the unions. The Illinois case was prompted by a decision by disgraced former governor Rod Blagojevich (D) to reward the Service Employees International Union by declaring its workers to be state employees for collective-bargaining purposes.
“I thought the situation was that Governor Blagojevich got a huge campaign contribution from the union, and virtually as soon as he got into office, he took out his pen and signed an executive order that had the effect of putting, what was it, $3.6 million into the union coffers?” Alito asked Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr.
In both that and the current case, Verrilli and the Obama administration intervened on behalf of the unions and argued against overturning the precedent.
The union case and the other controversies underline the importance of the coming presidential election in determining the court’s future.
Battle over unions signals Supreme Court role at center of political debate
And let the games begin.
Being excused from paying for the union’s political activities is not enough, she said. Public-employee union negotiations necessarily affect public policy decisions on government spending and taxes and issues such as seniority and educational policy.
Labor leaders call the challenge a “radical” attack on public-employee unions, one of the strongest segments of the organized labor movement. Laura Juran, a lawyer for the California Teachers Association, said teachers who disagree with the union’s views “are perfectly free to speak as citizens” to try to influence government decisions.
The partisan significance of the case is clear. Public-employee unions have become a major player in Democratic politics, generating campaign contributions and on-the-ground support for candidates. At the same time, disputes between the unions and Republican governors have become frequent and bitter.
The justices acknowledged the partisan stakes during oral arguments in the 2014 case. Justice Elena Kagan mentioned the tensions that flared in Wisconsin after Gov. Scott Walker (R) moved to curtail union rights and union members led an unsuccessful recall attempt. Nevertheless, she defended the current system in which it is up to states to decide whether “agency shop fees” are mandatory.
Alito, in the same argument, mentioned how some politicians are indebted to the unions. The Illinois case was prompted by a decision by disgraced former governor Rod Blagojevich (D) to reward the Service Employees International Union by declaring its workers to be state employees for collective-bargaining purposes.
“I thought the situation was that Governor Blagojevich got a huge campaign contribution from the union, and virtually as soon as he got into office, he took out his pen and signed an executive order that had the effect of putting, what was it, $3.6 million into the union coffers?” Alito asked Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr.
In both that and the current case, Verrilli and the Obama administration intervened on behalf of the unions and argued against overturning the precedent.
The union case and the other controversies underline the importance of the coming presidential election in determining the court’s future.
Battle over unions signals Supreme Court role at center of political debate
And let the games begin.
