SCOTUS to Rule on Union: Could be "Radical" Change

I don't see how they can claim that individual monies are not protected by the First Amendment, given their recent ruling on corporate campaign contributions.

Then there's this gem, of Scalia putting the smackdown on Justice Sotomayor, and from the bench, no less:

 

A pretty tennous stretch there by Scalia. The union actively works to garner benefits and better conditions for the worker paying the fees, so where does Planned Parenthood work directly on behalf of a worker? I see the merits of ending the closed shop being forced by the government (and, especially, the arguments against), but Scalia's point isn't the same.

 

fair share fees are utter crap. I can't believe other courts have thrown it out. Independent workers, or dependent for that matter, should absolutely be able to operate independent of the blood suckers.

 

why in the hell, even if it's beneficial to the worker, should he or she not have the option?

His point would be that freedom of speech on a topic certainly doesn't have any relation to compelling one to pay for either side of the argument. The debate over value to the individual is immaterial to the analogy.

 

Antonin Scalia is my homeboy.

 

I've always wonder how SAG gets away with this. you can't earn a dime as an actor before paying the union fees.

 

Not a fan, surprising, I know.

But forced union dues are BS. If you want to join, join. If not, you shouldn't be forced to join.

 

Yeah this isn't rocket science. If you don't want to pay for the union, you shouldn't be forced too.

 

Unions aren't government organizations, right? If so, I don't see the 1st Amendment issue, either. Unless government mandates these fees, how is it a Constitutional question?

 

The quote from Scalia does not make sense and I believe it is a misquote.

"You're essentially destroying not just the ... shop, but you're destroying the ability of the union to get money even from the people who don't agree with what it's doing," Justice Antonin Scalia told the plaintiff's attorney.

It only makes sense if the "don't" is changed to "do"

 

The rub comes from the fact that these are public employees.

 

Ah, in that case I see the issue.

 

Why? There are a lot of conditions of employment that require an employee to spend money on items, sometimes on things an employee does not wish to spend money.

 

Yeah, but it seems sort of a reach. We know that the employment context with state workers does not allow for the same free speech rights as a person has outside of the employment context. There are a whole host of restriction on speech, expression, association, etc.
What the plaintiff has to do here is show that even if they are not contributing to the political coffers of the union that even the negotiations of working conditions, pay, etc constitutes some sort of political expression, since political expression will be afforded a higher degree of protection.

 

Looks like Scalia supports the state and the union here.

 

this is hardly like buying a new suit for work. and there are some professions where literally the entire profession is required to join a union. so it's not just a case of "if you don't want to join a union go to a different company."

 

Yeah, so? There are many employers who require their employees to be members of organizations. There are many more who "encourage" membership.

 

I agree, as long as the independents are left to fend for themselves. They should get zero benefits from something they don't pay for.

 

As long as those who don't pay are barred from access to benefits negotiated by the union, I agree.

 

It's easy. The studios realize the vast majority of stars are on board with SAG and wouldn't do projects with scabs. Look how well replacement players worked for MLB.