From Associated Press:
The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that government workers can’t be forced to contribute to labor unions that represent them in collective bargaining, dealing a serious financial blow to Democratic-leaning organized labor.
The court’s conservative majority, re-empowered by Justice Neil Gorsuch, scrapped a 41-year-old decision that had allowed states to require that public employees pay some fees to unions that represent them, even if the workers choose not to join.
The 5-4 decision not only will free non-union members in nearly two dozen states from any financial ties to unions, but also could encourage members to stop paying dues for services the court said Wednesday they can get for free.
More here.
Democrat Ned Lamont:
“Today’s ruling in the Janus v. AFSCME undermines the ability of unions to represent workers, their families and their communities.
“Once again, this underscores the fact that elections have consequences. As Governor, I would fight efforts to repeal or weaken any progress we have made to protect our families and make our communities stronger. I will do everything in my power to improve living standards for working families. I will also ensure that workers have the right to organize through collective bargaining and achieve a decent standard of living.
“I have always believed that unions play a critical role in building up and protecting the middle class in Connecticut and across the country. Unions provide economic stability for families and give them the opportunity to have a quality life for themselves and their children by ensuring workers earn a living wage and can do so in a fair and just workplace. Unions also protect equal opportunities for women and people of color who have been systematically disadvantaged due to discrimination and prejudice.
Democrat Joe Ganim:
“The Supreme Court decision is nothing less than an attack on collective bargaining and working and middle class families,” said Ganim. “We must do everything we can to support our public sector unions, with whom we’ve partnered in government for many years.
“Between the Supreme Court and the Trump Administration, the hard-won rights of collective bargaining and the ability of men and women to collectively organize are under assault as never before in recent times. As governor, I will lead the effort to oppose this assault on the ability of working men and women to have good paying jobs and safe working conditions,” said Ganim.
“This is proving to be one of the most radical Supreme Courts we have ever seen, with decisions allowing discrimination based on sexual orientation and religion, restricting women’s access to family planning, and now giving a financial incentive for public sector workers to leave their union. In Connecticut, we must lead the way to resist this effort,” said Ganim.
Republican David Stemerman:
“This ruling is an important step protecting the First Amendment freedoms of government workers who have been forced to send part of their paychecks to union bosses and allowing them to keep more of their hard-earned money. More important, the chronic budget crisis in Connecticut has been a direct consequence of the massive power public sector unions hold over politicians like Dan Malloy and the backroom deals that have then been cut at the taxpayer’s expense. The serious financial problems facing Connecticut are the result of years of this rigged system and self-dealing that has hurt taxpayers. This is why, as self-made businessman who does not owe anything to the political insiders in Hartford, I’ve laid out a series of good government reforms that will prevent this from happening again when I’m Governor and today’s ruling will certainly help in that effort.”
Just yesterday Stemerman was quoted in The Journal Inquirer this week questioning how House Speaker Aresimowicz, who is a union leader, is able to put the best interests of the state before those of union members. “I find that a full-time paid member of a union is the one in charge of calling votes is a tremendous conflict of interest,” he said. “In the private sector, that’s crazy. You would never allow somebody who is so conflicted personally to have that kind of responsibility. … It is completely outrageous and is at the core of what is wrong with how this state is being governed.”
Why not downgrade the wages of people not paying dues by 20%.
That would save the states a lot of money.
I was a teamster with local 191 and am a union supporter. If a person chooses not to be a member so be it, but they should not enjoy the benefits of the union. The unions political endorsement may have mattered a generation ago , but no longer.
Time to play hard ball
Charlie, it’s a double edged sword. What if your union uses your dues to fund a presidential candidate that you find morally reprehensible, like 45. What if your union uses your dues to fight affirmative action initiatives across the country, when you believe that your union shouldn’t give a damn about who comes on the job just as long as they join the union. What if your union used your dues to fight affirmative action initiatives in your city and department thus using your own money to kick you in the ass.
I can see why an individual would be reticent about joining and maintaining a union membership today.
The teamsters have a long history of being on the side of the workers. Most unions I am aware of are socially progressive. Those that are not, which I don’t know, would not be representative of a job I would be interested in anyway.
*** There are pro’s & con’s to this decision. D.D makes a good point about Union’s political decisions sometimes to endorse certain candidates that may not be in line with the majority of workers or worst, promise the unions one thing & find an excuse to change their mine’s later. Great example of saying & promising one thing & doing another for the State Union’s support for governor, was Gov. Rowland! I believe that worker’s after serving their “on the job probation” & learning the in’s & out’s of either “joining or not joining” their local representing union, should have the right to make their own decision! *** REMEMBER, UNIONS ARE ONLY AS STRONG AS THERE LOCAL MEMBERSHIPS ***
The issue before the Supreme Court centered around workers covered by the collective bargaining agreement paying an agency fee to cover the costs of negotiating and administering that agreement. The agency fee would be the regular dues less the cost of political action. The plaintiffs want all the benefits of union membership without paying for it. If workers feel they are not being well represented by their union there is already a process in place to remedy that. It is the process of decertifying the union with a secret ballot vote. People like these plaintiffs are opportunistic, free riding, self serving scabs.
Someone might take you seriously if you didn’t hide behind the cloak of anonymity and inscrutability. Connecticut is a forced unionization state and it’s a condition of employment to belong to the union that represents the employer.
In order to pay agency fees in Connecticut one must fight forced unionization in state court and the cost of fighting can be cost prohibitive for most people.
Yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling is just a precursor. The real fireworks start when defined benefit pensions are declared unconstitutional and remediation becomes retroactive and immediate.
I’m sure that David Walker along with the Republican candidates for governor in Connecticut and the Republican Party in the state.
Rumor Mill:
Connecticut’s leading export isn’t insurance products, submarines or Black Hawk helicopters. No, it’s pension money.
It totals millions each month. Here are the geographic destinations:
Each month Connecticut sends money to 41 states and 16 foreign countries, all going to workforce beneficiaries. Health care benefits are paid locally, too and providers enjoy terms of the generous policies.
We can do what they did in “Tale of Two Cities” by Charles Dickens when queen of France, Marie Antoinette, was told that the poor people didn’t have any bread to eat she responded, “Let them eat cake.”
If Ron Mackey wants to give history lessons, he can start by telling OIB readers about The Fourth of July and what it means to him.
I usually do, Republican Frederick Douglass speech on July 5, 1852 in Rochester NY. “The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro.
A lot has changed since 1852.
It’s not too late to write this: retired firefighter Ron Mackey’ speech on July 5, 2018 in Bridgeport, CT. “Update: The Meaning of July Fourth for today’s Black:”.
Lennie, where are the opinions of the other Republican candidates for governor?
The democrat money laundering scheme just ended.
Nice sound bite but I doubt Little Joe Ganim actually gives a shit.