11.6 F
Chicago
Friday, February 3, 2023
HomeIllinois NewsUnions circumventing the Supreme Court, before it even rules

Unions circumventing the Supreme Court, before it even rules

Date:

spot_img

Panorama_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_Building_at_Dusk

Can the playing field ever be tilted enough for the unions? From Vincent Vernuccio and Chantal Lovell, a sample of what some pro-union legislators are up to while awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision in Janus v. AFSCME—the case that could give public employees the right to opt out of paying unions entirelyWashington state is the breeding ground for most legislation attempting to undermine the court. HB2751 passed the state’s legislature in February and would mandate that the state collect dues for government unions, something a majority of Americans think is inappropriate according to recent polling.

If you think dropping your cable or internet service is difficult, try disassociating from a union in New York. There, legislators are considering making it so hard to stop paying a union that public employees are effectively trapped. Like New Jersey’s S2137, New York S5778A would limit the period its members have to opt-out to a short “window” of time that are different for each employee.

Politicians are so worried workers might have a choice in paying unions that they’re scrambling to find ways to keep public employees in the dark about their rights. As in New Jersey, Washington’s SB6082, would prohibit public employers from notifying employees of their right to not pay a union in the event the court rules in workers’ favor. They’re also discussing SB6079, which would make it harder for nonprofits inform employees of their rights. Connecticut is considering a similar bill.

Meanwhile, Washington, New Jersey and Maryland legislators want to ensure their employees do hear from government unions and are pursuing legislation forcing new hires to sit through union sales pitches. Think timeshare presentations, without the beach and all-inclusive bar.

Vermont legislation seeks to keep workers tied to unions, even if they’ve checked all the boxes and opted out. S.238 would give non-union members no choice but to hire (and pay) a union to represent them if they have a grievance.

[F. Vincent Vernuccio and Chantal Lovell, “Unions Circumventing the Supreme Court, Before It’s Even Ruled,” Madison.com, March 29]

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from up to 5 devices at once

Latest stories

2 COMMENTS

  1. “As in New Jersey, Washington’s SB6082, would prohibit public employers from notifying employees of their right to not pay a union in the event the court rules in workers’ favor.” The politicians really think they can keep public sector employees from learning about dropping out of unions? What a joke! I’ll be happy to contribute money to ensure the word gets out!