Posted on

N.J. Officials Respond to U.S. Supreme Court Ruling on Labor Unions, Explain How Politicians Will be Protected Going Forward

bankrupt_monopoly

July 1,2018
the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Trenton NJ, Governor Phil Murphy, Attorney General Gurbir S. Grewal and Labor Commissioner Rob Asaro-Angelo responded today to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that says public sector workers need not pay their “fair share” of dues to the unions that represent public sector employees.

In an opinion issued this morning, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. The petitioners in Janus asked the Court to overrule an earlier decision that had determined public unions could require all workers to pay a “fair share” of union dues to defray the cost of collective bargaining. New Jersey, along with a coalition of states and unions, defended that prior decision. But in a 5-4 ruling this morning, the Supreme Court decided to allow workers to refuse to pay their fair share, potentially weakening collective bargaining by labor groups that negotiate employee compensation, pensions, and contracts.

“This disappointing decision does not in any way diminish our administration’s commitment to protecting the right of public sector employees to organize,” responded Governor Phil Murphy. “We stand firm with our labor unions and labor organizations to advocate and protect members’ rights as we did with the Workplace Democracy Enhancement Act I signed in May. Supporting strong unions is a critical part of making New Jersey’s economy work for everyone.”

If you read between the lines New Jersey politicians particular Democrats are upset that state workers will no longer be forced to support them through political donations.

Attorney General Gurbir Grewal agreed , “The very first amicus brief I signed as Attorney General was one in support of workers’ rights in Janus v. AFSCME,” said Attorney General Grewal. “I was proud to stand with labor on this crucial issue and remain so today. In New Jersey, we’re charting a path to protect workers even as the federal government turns away from them.

“At the Attorney General’s Office, we will use our legal authorities to continue vigorous enforcement of state laws that protect workers’ rights to organize and to engage in collective bargaining,” Attorney General Grewal continued. “Nothing about today’s decision changes that.”

The only thing Trenton is interested in protecting is the compact between state workers and Democrats that says you give us campaign contributions and we give you raises and generous contracts .

“This decision is a travesty for working men and women everywhere, particularly here in New Jersey, where workers’ right to organize is protected by our state Constitution,” added Labor Commissioner Rob Asaro-Angelo. “The decision undermines the ability of working people around the country to receive the respect and appreciation they deserve. Despite this ruling, the Department of Labor and Workforce Development is committed to working with our sister government agencies to protect workers’ rights, secure their safety, and ensure the dignity that work provides.”

The only “travesty” has been the lack of tax payer representation in the political process and the control of state government to unions

Posted on

U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Unions vs Free Speech Case

supreme_court_building

February 23,2018

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Washington DC, The Supreme Court is scheduled to return to Washington next week after nearly a month off. The justices will hear a number of important oral arguments, including a case involving free speech, and public employee unions.

Next Monday February 26th , the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in one of the most anticipated cases of the year, the case of Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31.

This case could have an enormous impact on big union states like New Jersey and may impact many unions political influence like the NJEA.

The case focuses on Mark Janus who is not a public sector union member but has to pay fees ie inion dues anyway. Janus argues these fees “violate his free speech and free association rights.”

This case involves forcing public employees who opt out of union membership to pay a fee for the “fair share” of costs associated with collective bargaining. Mark Janus, an Illinois state employee, argues that forcing him to subsidize the union he has declined to join violates his free speech and free association rights.

The court will look at whether to overturn its 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which held that public employees could be forced to pay an agency fee.

This very issue was before the court in 2016 when Justice Antonin Scalia died. The court deadlocked 4-4 in Friedrichs v. California Teachers’ Association, thereby upholding the lower court ruling in favor of the California Teachers Association.

Posted on

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case Against Compulsory Public-Sector Union Fees

l_20140108-trenton-capitol-building-1200

 

SCOTUS will hear Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31 this term.

Damon Root|Sep. 28, 2017 10:55 am

Today the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that has the potential of delivering a death blow to the legal privileges enjoyed by public-sector unions.

The case is Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31. At issue is whether it is constitutional for state governments to compel public-sector workers to pay union fees as a condition of employment even when those workers are not union members.

The case was brought by Mark Janus, a state employee in Illinois who objects to paying mandatory fees to a union that he has refused to join. Janus argues that the state’s scheme violates his First Amendment rights by forcing him to support political speech and activity that he does not wish to support.

Janus’s overarching goal is to overturn the Supreme Court’s 1977 precedent in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, in which the Court approved mandatory public-sector union fees on the grounds that non-union “free riders” should have to contribute something toward collective bargaining activities that benefit them too. That ruling provided a massive boon to public-sector unions nationwide.

http://reason.com/blog/2017/09/28/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-major-case