An important point on judicial retroactivity buried in a footnote of Justice Kavanaugh's opinion in Barr v. AAPC.
The PRO Act would implement a veritable grab bag of policies that labor unions have been pushing Congress to pass for years. The House will vote on it this week.
After the Janus ruling, AFSCME lost 98 percent of its agency fee-paying members, while the SEIU lost 94 percent.
In California, new lawsuits aim to make unions respect the Supreme Court's authority.
Striking down exclusive representation would allow labor organizers to give the boot to free-riding employees.
It was the end of the world...until it wasn't.
The Supreme Court says they can't forcibly collect dues from workers unwilling to pay them, but several unions don't seem to get it.
After Janus ruling, state lawmaker in New York wants to include collective bargaining costs in state union contracts.
The short answer is no. The longer answer is maybe, a little at a time, and that's a problem. Plus, is 2018 turning into 1968, a year of high-profile violence?
"If an employee's speech is about, in, and directed to the workplace, she has no 'possibility of a First Amendment claim,'" say the dissenters -- but that's not what the First Amendment caselaw says.
Today's Supreme Court ruling is a win for freedom of association and free speech, but don't expect it to change statehouse politics overnight.
States that want to allow public sector unions, and avoid "free-rider" problems, should still be able to do that -- just by paying unions directly, rather than via compelled agency fees.
A landmark victory for workers' rights will have major ramifications for the future of public sector unions.
Union-backed report finds unions could be screwed.
Capsule summary: "Vote the way we want you to, and maybe we'll have just a bit less contempt for you than we now do."
California unions and their allied politicians need to learn to respect the rights of California's government workers.
"It seems to me your argument doesn't have much weight."
Janus v. AFSCME could end mandatory union dues payment. Counter-intuitively, it might strengthen the labor movement.
The social worker at the heart of Janus v. AFSCME explains why no public employee should be forced to pay union dues.
The National Constitution Center invited Alicia Hickok and me to debate Janus; Ms. Hickok wrote an amicus brief supporting Janus, and I signed an amicus brief supporting the AFSCME.
The government always compels taxpayers to fund the management side of management-labor bargaining in public workplaces. Given this, why should there be a First Amendment problem with compelled funding (through agency fees as well as taxes) of both sides?
Can public sector unions force recalcitrant workers to pay dues, or does that violate the First Amendment?
I'm all for carefully reading the words of the Constitution, and applying the distinctions that it draws -- but we need to make sure we're understanding just what those distinctions are.
Will Baude and I have cosigned a new amicus brief on this in Janus v. AFSCME.
A very interesting analysis of the Supreme Court's new Internet tax case (South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.), by Notre Dame Prof. Randy Kozel.
DOJ argues workers are being forced to subsidize political positions with which they may disagree.
SCOTUS will hear Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31 this term.
Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees asks SCOTUS to end mandatory public-sector union fees.