Supreme Court hears case that could make all states ‘right to work’ for public employ

[ckaihatsu]

Supreme Court hears case that could make all states ‘right to work’ for public employees

By Cherrene Horazuk

Minneapolis, MN - The Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week in Harris v. Quinn, and the ruling could have a devastating impact on public sector workers and their unions.

The case was petitioned to the Supreme Court by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation (NRTW), a right-wing anti-union group. Harris v. Quinn narrowly looks at whether or not home care workers in the state of Illinois are public employees with the right to unionize. Illinois law allows home care workers to unionize, though in the case in question, the workers actually voted against having any union representation. Despite that, the NRTW appealed the case to the Supreme Court, seizing an opportunity to push the highest court to issue a sweeping ruling that would ensure no future unionization opportunities.

The NRTW is not content to have the court rule only on home care representation. They argued that it is unconstitutional for public sector unions to have exclusive representation rights and the ability to collect fair share fees for any public workers, even when the dues are used only for collective bargaining purposes. In essence, they want to turn every state into a ‘right to work’ state for public employees.

The questions posed by the most right-wing members of the Supreme Court made clear that they are salivating at the opportunity to strip the right to unionize from all public workers. A number of commentators have speculated that conservative Justice Antonin Scalia may end up the voice of ‘reason’ on this case. Though Scalia can in no way be considered a friend of labor, many speculate that he is less likely than the other conservatives on the court to reject 40 years of legal precedent recognizing the rights of public workers to unionize. Justice Scalia is also unlikely to want to restrict states’ rights to set their own laws. Union officials are counting on Justice Scalia to be the swing vote ruling in their favor on this case. A decision is expected later this year.

Harris v. Quinn is just the most recent in a series of court cases aimed at breaking unions. It is part of a concerted effort carried out in the courts, state legislatures and federal government to attack workers and defund unions (both public and private sector) by taking away a union’s ability to collect dues. These anti-union efforts have succeeded in Wisconsin, where public sector unions have lost at least 40% of their dues-paying membership since Governor Scott Walker succeeded in destroying collective bargaining for public employees. In Michigan, home of important sit-down strikes, ‘right to work’ is now the law.

Working people and the unions who represent us cannot rely on ‘moderate’ conservatives and narrow legal arguments to protect us. In fact, the law has been established to limit the effectiveness of union organizing and the Supreme Court has ruled time and again to strip us of our rights.

The more effective a strategy is, the more likely it is to be deemed illegal. Sit-down strike, where strikers occupy their worksite, thus preventing the company from bringing in scabs (‘replacement workers’) or finding other means to continue production, are a good example. This tactic was ruled illegal by the National Labor Relations Board after waves of sit-down strikes in the late 1930s led to significant gains for workers. The legality of the sit-down strike made it to the Supreme Court, which they ruled on Feb. 27, 1939, in the case of NLRB v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corporation, that sit-down-strikes were essentially illegal. The court ruled that workers who violated the law, regardless of whether that violation was provoked by a violation of the company, did not have to be reinstated. In other words, any worker who broke the law during a strike could be fired, no matter what.

As Joe Burns, labor lawyer and author of the book Reviving the Strike, states, “We cannot understand or overcome the weakness of the modern labor movement without addressing the role of the judiciary in suppressing labor rights. A century ago the labor movement had a crystal clear understanding of the role of the United States Supreme Court. From the early 1900s into the 1930s, labor activists railed against not just unfavorable labor law decisions but against the very idea that judges should be allowed to intervene in labor matters. From conservative AFL officials to radical unionists, labor activists understood that courts were engaged in judge-made labor law.”

As case after case is pushed to the Supreme Court by groups like the National Right to Work Foundation, labor activists must once again challenge the idea that judges can be trusted to determine labor policy. We must also challenge people to understand that if the laws are put in place to weaken our movement, those laws need to be broken.

The greatest upsurges in labor - the private sector in the 1930s and the public sector in the 1960s - were the result of hundreds of thousands of working people rising up and defying labor laws that were created to prevent us from winning. If we are to rebuild a strong movement of working people, we need to reclaim the tools of our historic successes, and not count on the courts to grant us the permission to use them.

Cherrene Horazuk is President of AFSCME 3800 which represents clerical workers at the University of Minnesota.

Read more News and Views from the Peoples Struggle at http://www.fightbacknews.org. You can write to us at [email protected]






This email was sent to [email protected]
why did I get this? unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences
Fight Back! News · P.O. Box 582564 · Minneapolis, MN 55440 · USA

[MarxSchmarx]

3 guesses as to how the 5 rightwing assholes on this kangaroo joke of a court are going to vote?

[Die Neue Zeit]

3 guesses as to how the 5 rightwing assholes on this kangaroo joke of a court are going to vote?

Comrade, make that one, really.

[MarxSchmarx]

Comrade, make that one, really.

It's hard for me to see how they will rule home care workers as public employees, particularly in this case where the workers have apparently voted against it. My sense is if the workers voted for unionization the court would not have taken this case because it would just be unnecessarily controversial and there was no real legal reason for doing so. But now that the unionization effort is apparently defeated, it provides them with an opportunity to lay the foundation for noting that private contractors of the state, which is what most of these people are, have a status somewhat distinct from people directly employed by the state.

It's a reductio-ad-absurdum argument - if the court approved these people as public employees, they'd have to recognize, e.g., that military contractors should have the same rights as US military veterans. Given how much gov't benefits military people in America get, it is hard for me to see how the rightwingers would tolerate this kind of open season. I suspect that they realize this is a case particularly well-suited to defend the privatization of state services, and think this an opportune moment to inject further neoliberalism into the process.

I could of course be very wrong, but I would not be surprised if the clowns that form the majority on the US Supreme Court would use arguments like that to stick it to the unions.

[ckaihatsu]

[I] would not be surprised if the clowns that form the majority on the US Supreme Court would use arguments like that to stick it to the unions.


Well, yeah, now that you've done their work for them....


= )

[cyu]

The more the wealthy corrupts a democracy, the more likely you'll see something like this happen. As corruption is removed, then you'll see stuff like this happen less - but it will never go away until capitalism is overthrown.

[MarxSchmarx]

I could of course be very wrong, but I would not be surprised if the clowns that form the majority on the US Supreme Court would use arguments like that to stick it to the unions. Well, yeah, now that you've done their work for them....


= )

Whilst I think it would be a bittersweet moment for the left if US Supreme Court people consulted revleft for the direction of the American legal system, the rightwingers do have the option of punting the case, and I think this to would be plausible (although perhaps less likely).

On some level this is actually a suboptimal test-case for the rightwingers. The state of Illinois recognizes the right of these private care-workers to organize with consequences akin to public-sector unionization. But because the care-workers chose not to organize, I think there is a legitimate question about why the court should bother to meet over a hypothetical. This is why there are still laws in places like Oklahoma prohibiting flying a red flag. It's quite clearly unconstitutional, but unless you've been prosecuted under it and had your rights violated as a result, you can't really have the courts strike it down.

After all, if two zealous rightwingers and two of the more labor-sympathetic judges want this to be settled once and for all, the whole court has to deal with it.

The Roberts court has been commented on for being somewhat risk-averse, as in the California gay marriage case, although I suspect for unions they feel they can afford to go much farther to the right than with gay marriage given the political climate in america.

[Clarion]

Although there are some laws that restrict the right of workers to organise in US states, in general right to work laws don't do this. Their primary effect is to prohibit collusion between union bureaucracies and employers. Forcing a worker to pay dues to a particular union against his or her will isn't something socialists should support. Neither is union officials funding the union through deals with employers rather than having to actually keep their membership happy, it creates an unhealthy dependency of the union bureaucracy on the bosses.


Yes, socialists should oppose the state interfering in how unions conduct their business. Union reform is a matter for the workers in those unions. But we should also oppose closed-shop arrangements in favour of free association.

[tachosomoza]

3 guesses as to how the 5 rightwing assholes on this kangaroo joke of a court are going to vote?

Clarence Thomas is a disgrace. A farm laborer from Pin Point Georgia who grows up and stabs his own people in the back. The ultimate uncle Tom.

[Red Banana]

Although there are some laws that restrict the right of workers to organise in US states, in general right to work laws don't do this. Their primary effect is to prohibit collusion between union bureaucracies and employers. Forcing a worker to pay dues to a particular union against his or her will isn't something socialists should support.

Ok, you're not from the US so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. I don't know how the laws are in Britain, but over here unions are required by law to represent everyone in any workplace they represent. Right to work laws allow individuals in workplaces that are already represented by a union to "not join" (not pay dues), so you still get the representation of the union, without actually having to contribute to anything, mooching essentially. It's basically a covert way for the state to defund (bust) unions and drive them into the ground.

So yeah, right to work laws don't really jive well with socialists.

[Clarion]

I know what they do. People shouldn't be forced by capitalists to join the union.

[#FF0000]

I know what they do. People shouldn't be forced by capitalists to join the union.

You're a real piece of shit if you know what these laws do and still support them. Right To Work laws are a means to break unions and subject workers to, basically, at-will employment. Pennsylvania is a right-to-work state and that means than I can be legally fired for any reason whatsoever. I was fired once for telling a manager that I was going to Labor Relations for trying to force me to work without pay -- and when it happened I called Labor Relations I found there was nothing I could do, because the employer did not give a reason for terminating me.

Further, not having these laws doesn't mean people are being "forced by capitalists" to join a union -- it means that they have to contribute to the union in a union-shop. Capitalists fight tooth and nail against closed shops like that because that's the kind of shop environment in which unions actually thrive. In practice, an open shop is a non-union shop.

[Clarion]

You're a real piece of shit if you know what these laws do and still support them.

I don't support them. Learn to read.


Right To Work laws are a means to break unions and subject workers to, basically, at-will employment. Pennsylvania is a right-to-work state and that means than I can be legally fired for any reason whatsoever.

It may be that in Pennsylvania the same statute contains provisions allowing no-fault dismissal and prohibiting union security agreements, but the two are not one and the same thing. It isn't the prohibition on closed shops that allows you to be unfairly sacked. You're moving the goal posts.


Further, not having these laws doesn't mean people are being "forced by capitalists" to join a union -- it means that they have to contribute to the union in a union-shop.

They are forced to pay the membership dues, that is effectively the same.


Capitalists fight tooth and nail against closed shops like that because that's the kind of shop environment in which unions actually thrive.

Many do, some are more comfortable with it.


In practice, an open shop is a non-union shop.

A union which is actually a free association of workers brought together through solidarity, common interest and shared struggle is a far stronger union than one which has coerced a lot of resentful people onto its ledgers.

[#FF0000]

It may be that in Pennsylvania the same statute contains provisions allowing no-fault dismissal and prohibiting union security agreements, but the two are not one and the same thing.

At-will employment comes part-and-parcel with Right To Work everywhere in the US because unions are literally the only obstacle to it unless the employer themselves set down a process for termination.



They are forced to pay the membership dues, that is effectively the same.
No -- a boss accepting a union arrangement does not mean the boss is behind the arrangement. It's strange you told me to "learn to read" when you're so careless with your words.


A union which is actually a free association of workers brought together through solidarity, common interest and shared struggle is a far stronger union than one which has coerced a lot of resentful people onto its ledgers.The fact of the matter is, though, that an open shop (as opposed to a union shop -- "closed shops" are illegal virtually everywhere) is a death sentence more often than not for a private sector union -- and it's not because the union will fail to keep the people they protect happy. It's because the people opposed to labor have a much larger soap box to stand on and a louder voice.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Since Marbury vs. Madison, the perennial legislation from the bench by the SCOTUS has made it clear that all constitutional courts should be politically accountable on short notice. Bolivia does this to some extent through elections of their constitutional judges, for example.

[Red Commissar]

I can say too that "stand your ground laws" are good for me because I can defend myself against an attacker, but you have to be dense as fuck not to see the reasons for such laws to be passed in the first place. Same thing goes for justifications for right-to-work laws typically being pitched as keeping people free from being forced into something they don't want. You have to look beyond that and see how Right-to-Work has actually worked out in states which have adopted it, as well as the vicious drive we've seen it occur with in states like Wisconsin and Michigan for public and private employees.

[Clarion]

At-will employment comes part-and-parcel with Right To Work everywhere in the US because unions are literally the only obstacle to it unless the employer themselves set down a process for termination.

Unions are the obstacle to no-fault dismissal.


Unions. Free associations of workers.


Not a system in which employers force employees to pay into the union. Not a system in which the financing of the union is dependent on harmonious relations with the boss. Not a system which denies workers even that most basic right, to join or not join the union of their choice.



No -- a boss accepting a union arrangement does not mean the boss is behind the arrangement. It's strange you told me to "learn to read" when you're so careless with your words.

I didn't say the boss is behind the arrangement. Again, learn to read.


The fact of the matter is, though, that an open shop (as opposed to a union shop -- "closed shops" are illegal virtually everywhere) is a death sentence more often than not for a private sector union -- and it's not because the union will fail to keep the people they protect happy. It's because the people opposed to labor have a much larger soap box to stand on and a louder voice.



Don't be so defeatist. Unions manage to organise workplaces (private and state) in jurisdictions where closed/union shops are illegal. Some industries have patchy coverage. The transition is usually a shock. And they don't have as large an on-paper membership. But these are real unions, free associations of workers who willingly go out of their way to contribute a cut of their pay-cheque to the union. They are unions in which officials need to be responsive to the needs, wants and desires of their members because their membership and funding depends on it. They are unions whose activists need to remain active, to get out there and make the case for organised labour to the workforce on a regular basis.

[DaringMehring]

Unions. Free associations of workers.


What you are basically saying is that the only organized and powerful working class force in the country, the achievement of thousands of struggles and sacrifices, should be dismantled because it doesn't fit your theoretical vision of freedom.

In a union, workers have the freedom to express themselves and vote. Unions are supposed to be democracies. The freedom to not be in despite the democratic decision of the workplace is not a real freedom. That is like saying, after the revolution, anyone who opts to be a capitalist, ie wants to opt out of socialism, should be able to do so.



Not a system in which employers force employees to pay into the union. Not a system in which the financing of the union is dependent on harmonious relations with the boss.


The union depends on harmonious relations among the workers because the workers are the ones who can decertify the union. Bosses hate unions and bust unions because they don't have "harmonious relations" with them.



Not a system which denies workers even that most basic right, to join or not join the union of their choice.


That decision is democratically made by the entire work force. And you really should realize the people you've aligned with on this issue are right-wingers and big capitalists, and their political puppets, who want to deny that "basic right" that you speak of.

[#FF0000]

I didn't say the boss is behind the arrangement. Again, learn to read

You said the employer is forcing people to join the union. That is not the case. The employer ifs bound by the union to employ union members.

[KurtFF8]

Pennsylvania is a right-to-work state and that means than I can be legally fired for any reason whatsoever.

While I agree with your sentiment and oppose right to work laws, this is not what right-to-work means.

Right-to-work has to do with dues collection as you've pointed out and that's pretty much it. It doesn't have to do with being fired "for any reason" nor does it "outlaw unions" (as many in the South falsely claim).

If you're in a union shop in a right to work state, you can still get union representation (this of course depends on how the contract and the union work of course). But right-to-work does not have to do with firing and hiring practices beyond security clauses.

This isn't to diminish the importance of combating right-to-work laws (it's quite important to how unions operate internally and externally) but it seems that many even on the Left have a misconception of what they are.


They are forced to pay the membership dues, that is effectively the same.

What in the hell are you talking about here? These security clauses are pushed by and fought for by unions, not capitalists. The owners of businesses oppose the allowance of security clauses because they provide unions with many more resources (primarily financial of course, but also in terms of union membership).

Capitalists do have to collect the dues/deduct them from paychecks and send the dues money to the unions, but this is because of their contracts with the unions. To oppose security clauses on the basis of "well it's the capitalists making union members pay union dues" just doesn't make any sense.


Don't be so defeatist. Unions manage to organise workplaces (private and state) in jurisdictions where closed/union shops are illegal.

And of course the primary example of this is the South (where most right-to-work states are) and it just so happens that unions are, by every measure, significantly weaker in those places than in places that don't have right-to-work laws. What effect do you think that has on the non-union workforce of places like the South?

[Bostana]

When Scumbag. Snyder had Michigan a right to work state, my dads company became fire at-will. He was fired last month around Christmas because he refused to sign his name to a design he found faulty. He worked there for 8 years and there is no doubt in my mind that if the the workers had a Union he would stil be employed.

Easy for the stuck up upper-middle class kids to praise this law and claim unions are evil from their view

[#FF0000]

While I agree with your sentiment and oppose right to work laws, this is not what right-to-work means.

(yeah i already addressed my confusion a couple posts back. good post though)

[KurtFF8]

(yeah i already addressed my confusion a couple posts back. good post though)

I realized that this was already addressed after I made my post, sorry about that