Adjunct Law Prof Blog

Editor: Mitchell H. Rubinstein
New York Law School

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Saturday, May 31, 2014

Interesting Article About Harris v. Quinn Pending Supreme Court Case

For those of you whom do not know, there is an extremely important public sector labor law case due out any day from the Supreme Court. It is Harris v. Quinn and it concerns the issue of whether employees could be compelled to pay union dues even though they choose not to join the union. An interesting LA Times article which summarizes the issues is available here.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/adjunctprofs/2014/05/interesting-article-about-harris-v-quinn-pending-supreme-court-case.html

Public Sector Labor Law | Permalink

Comments

Agency fees =/= union dues, this is indisputable established legal fact.

Posted by: TR Donoghue | May 31, 2014 10:57:46 AM

The article is interesting to other business sector out there. Thank you for the article.

Posted by: soemco | Jun 15, 2014 5:15:27 PM

The article overstates/misrepresents Scalia's record when it concludes: "But the precedents in Scalia's own jurisprudence are clear. First Amendment rights aren't at issue in Harris vs. Quinn. If he follows his own stated principles, he'll be turning the right-to-work crowd away."

There is no way that squares with the opinion in Knox (2012) that Scalia signed on to:
"Acceptance of the free-rider argument as a justification for compelling nonmembers to pay a portion of union dues represents something of an anomaly—one that we have found to be justified by the interest in furthering “labor peace.” Hudson, 475 U. S., at 303. But it is an anomaly nevertheless."

In other words whether or not Scalia strikes down forced fees or not, clearly he thinks the First Amendment rights of non-members is at issue. In fact, if he believes what he said in Knox, he should strike down forced dues.

Posted by: Sam G | Jun 23, 2014 11:24:42 AM

Post a comment