No. 16–1466. Argued February 26, 2018—Decided June 27, 2018 (click here)
Alito wrote the majority (5-4) opinion and it proves where the activist judge exists in the conservative judicial movement out of the Federalist Society.
Alito and his Brothers on the Supreme Court stated the "agency" provision in union contracts was a violation of speech. In other words, if an employee of JANUS was paying "agency" dues to the union it was as if the employee was backing the union.
ONE MIGHT RECOGNIZE THIS "SPEECH" MESS AS IT TAKES ON CHARACTERISTICS OF RELIGIOUS DOGMA IN EMPLOYMENT AND CONTRACEPTIVE RIGHTS. I THINK THE EMPHASIS IS VERY SIMILAR. IT DEALS WITH "THE CONSCIENCE."
So, Alito and his Supreme Court Brothers decided the "agency" provision of union contracts was unconstitutional.
I am quite confident most adults have dealt with an agency when renting or purchasing a residence. They fill out the contracts and witness the signatures and provide an accounting for fees and monies paid. In such an agency relationship all parties involved benefit. It is a fiduciary relationship. TRUST. One party trusts the other to be acting in good faith.
There is no such thing as a divided union shop, either all employees benefit from the contract or none do. It is to keep harmony in the union shop with members having benefits beyond the paycheck such as involvement and voting for those that represent them. Also, "shops" have union representatives. Being a union representative also has it's perks such as higher involvement and possibly advancement in the union organization.
What Alito and his Supreme Court Brothers did was to continue the "agency" aspect of the union contract WITHOUT any fees being paid. So, this employee that BELIEVED his partial payment of dues for the benefit of the union acting as an "agent" would make a statement about his permission for unionization while still receiving the benefits. He is not troubled in accepting the work of the unions and the pay and benefits they bring to his life, simply the partial dues required in the CLEAR DEFINITION of "agency."
The Supreme Court is completely out on a limb and WRONG. If the employee from JANUS wants to eliminate the "union agency" of his conscience he should not be benefitting from the contract at all. The ALITO DECISION is making the unions work for ALL the employees of a company without an agency fee. The union will still seek members and receive union dues and continue to collective bargaining, BUT, achieving union members is more difficult with this ALITO DECISION.
THE CORRECT decision if one is to follow ALITO'S TROUBLED CONSCIENCE PARADIGM is to have three levels of involvement; member, agency member and non-member. The agency member would be paying partial dues as it exists today and the non-member would receive no benefit of the contract at all. In that three-tiered system, it is easy to see there is an incentive to join the union at least at the agency level. ALITO'S TROUBLED CONSCIENCE PARADIGM had no problem with the idea of cheating unions out of their agency fees.
I would like to see real estate agencies work for free. Does anyone believe a CONSCIENCE DRIVEN DIRECTIVE about such "agency" fees will ultimately find it's way into such businesses? I think it might. I know of no greater conscience in relation to Americans than a home or residence.
THINK ABOUT IT.
Unions need the support of Americans to place a REASONABLE structure for their vital agencies that build the Middle Class and doesn't cast it into poverty.
