Pam specializes in laws that have an impact on First Nations, and has a year history of activism on social, political and legal issues. His specialty is examining the political economy of fair trade, free trade, global trade governance and how trade issues play out among social movements and states.
Let me embed his tweets: In fact, a ruling for the petitioner in Janus v.
Everything would be more honest then, I believe. No middleman in trying to make it look like representing individuals. The states just shovel money at the unions. Feed the piggies directly!
Hemel links to this paper he co-authored: Abstract Roughly half of U. Detroit Board of Educationthe Court will reconsider that ruling in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association in early Many observers predict the Court may use Friedrichs as an opportunity to overrule Abood, with the consequence that public-sector unions will lose the ability to deter free-riding by nonmembers.
We take no position on whether Abood will, or ought to, survive. Instead, we present a novel alternative mechanism to address the free-rider problem in public-sector workplaces — a mechanism that could be utilized even if Abood is overturned. We suggest that if a public-sector employer wants to make sure that a labor union is compensated for the cost of representing nonmembers, the employer can reimburse the union for those expenses directly.
In fact, our direct payment alternative might leave public-sector employers and employees better off than existing agency shop arrangements. First, the direct payment alternative eases the First Amendment concerns raised in Friedrichs: Second, the direct payment alternative would bring with it favorable federal tax consequences for state and local government employees.
Most public-sector employees would fare better on an after-tax basis if their employers adopted the direct payment alternative instead of the agency shop arrangement.
I think this one really would pass IRS muster, so that is a good idea.
Here is an optimistic take from CEI: A ruling in favor of plaintiff Mark Janus, an Illinois social service worker, would free public employees across the country from being required to pay for union representation as a condition of employment. In states like California and Illinois that allow the collection of agency fees, public sector unions wield considerable political influence, which has enabled them to negotiate higher compensation for their members and increased public spending and more government hiring.IMPACT is the Republic of Ireland's largest public and services trade union, representing close to 60, members working in hundreds of public service occupations, grades and professions in health, local government, education, the civil service, and voluntary and community organisations.
Public employee unions represent workers at every level of government - federal, state and local. Since contract negotiations for these workers are dependent not on private corporations, but on the size of government budgets, this is the one segment of the labor movement that can actually contribute directly to the people with ultimate responsibility .
The Supreme Court Wednesday dealt a huge blow to public-sector unions and the labor movement in general, ruling in Janus v. AFSCME that public employees do not have to pay fees to unions to cover.
At issue was a seemingly obscure issue - public-sector unions' "agency fees" - but the outcome had the potential to disrupt many labor unions nationwide.
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel on an amicus brief by the American Federation of Teachers and American Association of University Professors in support of the respondents in this case..
Issue: (1) Whether Abood schwenkreis.comt Board of Education should be overruled and public-sector “agency shop. Summary. Over the last decade, a number of cases attacking the rights of public-sector union members have been quietly working their way through the courts and, finally, up to the U.S.