Opinon: Using the courts to destroy unions


WASHINGTON — Many conservatives believe in the untrammeled rights of employers. Consequently, they despise unions. They also can’t stand it that organized labor usually backs Democrats and they especially detest public employee unions which, by their very nature, advocate for government.

For decades, these same conservatives criticized the politicization of the courts, accusing liberals of “inventing rights,” “making new law” and indulging in “judicial activism.”

And one more thing: Conservatives of late have charged that liberals refuse to acknowledge the importance of allowing revered and useful social institutions to thrive and maintain their organizational integrity. So, for example, the right insists that religiously linked organizations opposed to contraception must under no circumstances be required to cover birth control in their health plans.

This bundle of contradictions is on open display in the case of Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. Argued this week before the Supreme Court, the suit is an effort to overturn 41 years of settled precedent for the purpose of crippling the American labor movement.

The claimant, Mark Janus, an Illinois state social worker, argues that his First Amendment liberties are violated because he has to pay an “agency fee” to the union even though he is not a member and might disagree with its politics.

On the merits, nothing about the agency fee deprives Janus of his right as a citizen to speak out as he wishes. And the idea behind collective bargaining is that when a majority of employees decide to join a union, its bargaining typically produces higher pay and benefits for the entire bargaining unit. Agency fees pay for this collective effort.

This is why conservative money and influence came together to bring this case. And, as University of Baltimore law professor Garrett Epps observed in The Atlantic, the litigation strategy of “the powerful anti-union advocacy network” was to avoid creating a factual record on the agency-fee issue in the lower courts.

Instead, the anti-labor consortium sought to force the case up to the Supreme Court at a moment when it hoped a conservative majority would reflexively take its side.

To know how political this case is, consider Justice Anthony Kennedy’s polemical response to the solicitor general of Illinois, which sided with the union. Kennedy seemed incredulous that the state could have a stable partnership with a union that was fighting for “a greater size workforce, against privatization, against merit promotion … for teacher tenure, for higher wages, for massive government, for increasing bonded indebtedness, for increasing taxes.”

Kennedy asked a pro-union lawyer: “If you do not prevail in this case, the unions will have less political influence; yes or no?” The answer was yes, a victory for Janus would curb labor’s political power. To which Kennedy candidly commented: “Isn’t that the end of this case?”

But in making a point of his own, Kennedy also underscored that a labor setback would clearly benefit the Republican Party.

The very slim hope of dodging a blatantly partisan decision rests with Chief Justice John Roberts.

A 5-to-4 anti-labor ruling would remind us why Senate Republicans refused even to consider Judge Merrick Garland’s nomination for the seat now occupied by Justice Neil Gorsuch. It would reveal a truly activist court mired in politics — and a long way from Roberts’ vision of judges who only call balls and strikes.

Writes for The Washington Post.



Reader Comments ...


Next Up in Opinion

POINT OF VIEW: “Stand Your Ground”: A good law for bad situations

On July 19, Michael Drejka shot and killed Markeis McGlockton in a Clearwater parking lot. Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri declined to charge Drejka, citing the state’s “stand your ground” law. Outrage ensued. It was just an argument over a parking spot, some say, hinting that the whole thing is Drejka’s fault in the first...
Readers weigh in on attacks upon freedom of the press

Repudiating the notion that the U.S. media are “the enemy of the people,” The Palm Beach Post on Thursday joined with more than 350 other newspapers to assert, each in its own way, the critical importance of a free and independent press. Our editorial, “In defense of democracy’s defenders,” elicited strong responses, pro...
Commentary: The Myth of a GOP ‘War on the Poor’
Commentary: The Myth of a GOP ‘War on the Poor’

Has the Republican Party declared “war on the poor”? That is the recent accusation from New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, adding that Republicans “are fanatical about cutting off aid to the less fortunate” because “they hate the idea of government helping anyone.” Krugman is a brilliant international trade economist...
Commentary: Weakening anti-poverty programs would harm millions
Commentary: Weakening anti-poverty programs would harm millions

A new report from President Trump’s Council of Economic Advisers argues that U.S. anti-poverty programs have reduced poverty so dramatically that we should now take assistance like SNAP (previously food stamps), Medicaid, and rental assistance away from people who don’t work a certain number of hours each week. Never mind that other proponents...
Opinion: Bad men, but good presidents

With the continuing hysteria about Donald Trump’s presidency, a few questions come to mind. The first: Can a bad man become a good president? The second: Does one’s being a good man guarantee he’ll be a good president? Third: Does having a good president require a good man? Is there any evidence of Lord Acton’s argument that...
More Stories