(U.S. Supreme) Court: Employers can use state funds to campaign against unions

[Newsjock]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

The Supreme Court today overturned a California law that prohibited employers from using money they get from the state to campaign against labor unions.

In a 7-2 ruling, the court said the law, the first of its kind in the nation, conflicts with federal labor laws that allow employers to speak freely against unionization, as long as they do not use threats or coercion.

... The union-sponsored law, signed in 2000 by then-Gov. Gray Davis, barred state contractors and other companies that receive at least $10,000 from the state in a year from using any of that money to support or oppose union organizing. The law was suspended by a federal judge in 2003 but reinstated in September 2006 by a federal appeals court in San Francisco.

... "We don't believe Congress ever intended to force the states to provide taxpayer money to fight workers who are trying to organize a union," Stephen Berzon, a lawyer for the AFL-CIO and its California affiliate, said today.


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/19/BA0P11C0TK.DTL&tsp=1

[Ian David]

1. I read an earlier post saying the court was packing it in early this week. n/t

[catrose]

3. I certainly hope so

Given this POS decision. What if I don't want my tax dollars to go to employers who speak against unions?

[McCamy Taylor]

5. Then you have to speak to your representative.

[Bjorn Against]

11. And if I don't have a representative?

I'm sorry but I refuse to call the piece of slime that sits in Congress for my district a representative. He doesn't represent anyone except the elite, and there is no way in hell he is going to do anything to stop this.

Sorry, but I don't buy into the notion that talking to one of the most right-wing politicians in the state is going to do me much good. Yes, I will try to see him get defeated in the fall but for now my only recourse is to continue to scream as loud as I can about how corrupt these people are and hope more people follow suit.

[damntexdem]

2. Slimy SCOTUS bastards!

Nuff said.

[KT2000]

4. Those activist judges

are at it again. This one takes the cake though.

[Trillo]

6. 7-2?

That's not particularly close.

"We don't believe Congress ever intended to force the states to provide taxpayer money to fight workers who are trying to organize a union,"

Work harder for less so your boss can use taxdollars against you so you will be forced to work even harder for less!

Meanwhile, I hear CEO pay is upwards of hundreds of millions per year. They have more, so, you can work harder for less!

[bemildred]

7. Money is fungible.

How would you know the money spent to fight a union was the money given by the state? The purpose is laudable, but it's a bad law. The time and effort would be better spent going after employers that use threats or coercion to stop unionization, defending workers that work to unionize, putting an end to "right to work" laws, ending the pretension that individual workers can bargain "equally" with big corporations. There is PLENTY of that going on.

[louis c]

8. Elections Matter

Get it. Blue collar workers should focus on their jobs, health care and benefits. All the rest is horse shit.

Our fathers and grandfathers got it. That's why we had FDR, Truman, and JFK. Even Eisenhower and Nixon never came out against unions, because our parents knew where their bread was buttered. Now, too many of our members are concerned with horse shit issues like gay marriage or who heard what in a church.

Focus on what's important. Our jobs and our benefits. Vote the wrong way again, and we might not get another chance to change things in our life time.

[Deja Q]

9. One would think companies have better things to do...

:shrug:

While morally wrong (IMHO), if the government gives unions money to help workers, then I can't see why the same government cannot give money to people who wish to speak up against unions.

Maybe the government should stay out of both sides; are unions really struggling to maintain funding?

Sadly, unions seem to be a "necessary evil".

[bread_and_roses]

12. What on earth are you talking about?

"the government gives unions money to help workers?" eh? What money does the government give unions?

"are unions really struggling to maintain funding?" Unions "funding" comes from member dues; fewer members, fewer dues. Due to the anti-labor laws and the no-penalty union busting that goes on union membership has shrunk to a fraction of its' former strength over about the last half a century.

"Sadly, unions seem to be a 'necessary evil'?" Just what is "evil" about workers coming together democratically to stand up for their rights as a block, instead of the inevitably defeated individual by individaul? Go over to the AFL-CIO website and look at the union advantage for workers and for communities with a higher density of unionized workers. Look at what has happened to both the working and "middle" class since the successful assault on unions since Reagan.

I am truely mystified by what you could possibly mean.

[VP505]

10. There was a time when workers had to

rise up and fight against their employers, many got their heads busted fighting anti-union employers and Robber Baron's but eventually the workers won rights and benefits. Perhaps its time for workers and union members too go another round with employers to get back those rights that were fought so hard for.

[readmoreoften]

13. Fucked. Up.

[happyslug]

14. Here is the Opinion:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-939.pdf

The good old Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 raises it ugly head once again. The Court uses modification of the Wagner Act passed as part of the Taft-Hartley Act to say that the Wagner Act (as Modified) preempts any effort by the state to regulate how a employer handles the issue of whether its employees can form a union. The Court ruled the regulations set forth in the Taft-Hartley Act being federal law, is superior to any attempt by any state to help people join Unions.

The Court does mention some cases from the 1940s that permitted some employer say in unionization efforts on First Amendment Grounds, but this decision is based on the changes made to the Wagner Act by the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. Under the changes passed as part of Taft-Hartley Employers were clearly given the right to oppose unionization efforts. The courts said since Federal Law clearly says an employer can OPPOSE unionization efforts, a state can not pass a law that forbids the employer from exercising what is permitted by Federal Law.

[tabasco]

15. But it's not class warfare!

On the current track, American workers will be serfs by 2050.

[Faux pas]

16. Or sooner.

[fasttense]

17. Who's going to buy the crap spewing out of these corporatist

when there is no American Middle Class left?

And if you think for one minute that China, India and Korea are going to pick up the consumer sales slack the American middle class use to buy, you need to stop watching the propaganda and start looking at reality. Those three countries put together don't buy a quarter of what the American Middle class did in 2005.