Courts and Unions
I ask because I don't know: Have the courts ever substantively ruled in favor of laws passed by elected officials intended to roll back (or at least hold in check) the power and influence of unions?
Last week, U.S. District Judge Lynwood Smith issued a temporary injunction blocking Alabama's new law prohibiting members of public unions (in particular the Alabama Education Association) from having their membership dues directly deducted from their paychecks. The law was passed more or less on the basis that such groups frequently have their members engage in "political activities," thus representing a conflict of interest. Yesterday, the Alabama affiliates of the International Association of Fire Fighters filed a similar lawsuit and a follow-up motion to consolidate theirs with the AEA's.
In his ruling, Judge Smith "stated that AEA lawyers had 'demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on their claim' that the new law violates the organization's rights to free speech and equal protection as granted under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution." Obviously, the state has appealed.
My observation is that the AEA usually wins in court. Do unions ever lose in court?
- Comment (8)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
May '10
Re: Courts and Unions
To answer your first question, the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 amended the National Labor Relations Act to provide that unions could commit unfair labor practice, too - not just employers. Interesting tidbit - Ralph Nader's presidential platform actually included a plank advocating the repeal of Taft-Hartley.
Regarding the Alabama decision, I'm not familiar with the particular legislation but I'm surprised the Alabama legislature felt the need to give a basis for the bill at all. The states in which I practice do not grant collective bargaining rights to public employees and certainly wouldn't coerce deduction of union dues from paychecks. There is nothing about a denial of dues checkoff that infringes on the union's First Amendment rights. If the union were being candid, the only hardship it faces it actually having to do some legwork and pound the pavement to collect dues from its individual members. Most likely, the union doesn't want to do that because (1) it involves getting up off their tookes and (2) many of these Alabamians probably won't want to fork over their hard earned cash.
May '10
Re: Courts and Unions
And to stick up for my fellow management-side labor and employment lawyers, you better bet unions lose in court. A lot.
Feb '11
Re: Courts and Unions
Come on now. Let's not pretend there is any great principle involved here other than that the left wants what it wants no matter what. I note the Beck decision of the US supreme court decreed that unions can't spend dues money on politics without the consent of the dues payer. I know from personal experience that this has been ignored.
So now another court has decreed that unions have a constitutional right to screw money out of people blah blah blah. Who cares about the rationalization?
It's all about power, not about the law, or what is right. Yet again the left loses an election, sees laws passed it does not like, and resorts to unelected unaccountable bureaucrats to overturn the election result.
Yawn. Same old story, new century, one more step to the abyss where the law is regarded by the public that is compelled to pay and pay and pay as merely a made up justification for tyranny.
Or are we already there? I suspect so, and that won't end well.
Edited on Mar 25, 2011 at 9:27amMar '11
Re: Courts and Unions
The law appears to target organizations that use funds for political activity. If organizations that don’t use funds for political activity are still permitted to have dues withheld from paychecks, then that may be from whence the potential free speech and equal protection issues arise.
Jun '10
Re: Courts and Unions
Thanks for the insight, Matthew. I should say that the idea of "a basis" is more my own formulation, rather than anything pulled from a summary of the legislation. All I really have access to is the media reporting done on the subject. Suffice to say, it is clear the target is the AEA, which by far is the most powerful political organization in the state (apart from the party apparatus). They are fully entrenched in the halls of power in Montgomery - but I don't want to bore anybody with Alabama politics.
Absolutely it is all about money and influence. Loss of revenue from dues is a key argument in the AEA lawsuit.
The question I'm really asking, when considering the initiatives to curtail union influence in Wisconsin, Ohio, and elsewhere (even us here down south) ... what chance is there that the courts will uphold such laws? Because of course the unions are going to fight through the courts.
Edited on Mar 25, 2011 at 10:52amJun '10
Re: Courts and Unions
Xennady: So now another court has decreed that unions have a constitutional right to screw money out of people blah blah blah. Who cares about the rationalization?
It's all about power, not about the law, or what is right. Yet again the left loses an election, sees laws passed it does not like, and resorts to unelected unaccountable bureaucrats to overturn the election result.
Exactly. Which is what is so frustrating - especially since Alabama's election resulted in nearly complete Republican control for the first time in 136 years. And on a national scale, it is discouraging, because the cynic in me presumes that no matter who we elect, what laws are passed ... the courts are the ace up the public union sleeve.
May '10
Re: Courts and Unions
Jim: You're right that the fights will be in the courts in many places. First, that fact is an implicit admission by the unions that they have lost the political argument. That's significant, and "losses" in the courts shouldn't discourage our side in pushing our political agenda. Second, we have to pay attention to judicial selection. Federally, that means keeping an eye on your Senators to make sure they're not letting questionable district and appeals court nominees slip past. On the state level, it means paying close attention to the judicial candidates on the ballot. The rules are typically skewed in favor of the incumbent and state election laws don't allow the voters much information about the candidates. You have to put in more work, but it's absolutely essential.
Dec '10
Re: Courts and Unions
We're doing the same thing in Florida and, when it passes, the left will definitely find a liberal judge to stay it. It will climb, but recall that even the US Supreme Court had to slap down Florida's Supreme Court when they supported Gore in 2000; the US Supreme Court found against Florida, unanimously, including all of the liberal justices. The point being, states have to do this, it has to make its way through the courts and, eventually, the SCOTUS will have to decide this.
That's my suspicion. There are far too many leftist judges scattered throughout the judiciary for this to be finalized before one, big, showdown. So welcome aboard, Alabama!