Krauthammer: SCOTUS overturning the Illinois union-dues mandate would be a “blow to organized labor from which they would not recover”

posted at 9:01 pm on January 21, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

Ed already covered the Harris v. Quinn arguments concerning forced unionization making their way through the Supreme Court, but here’s a quick food-for-thought addendum: As George Will points out, union participation has been dropping precipitously for decades, and they depend upon concentrated government support to keep their blue model going. If the Supreme Court were to rule against Labor in this case — a scenario that Krauthammer admits he thinks is unlikely — “they know it’s the power of the state that keeps them going, and in the absence of it, they really are looking at ruin.”


Krauthammer: I think this would be a blow to organized labor from which they would not recover. Unless you force people into these unions, they generally don’t go. As we saw in Wisconsin, as we saw in Indiana, once you release government workers from the obligation to actually pay into a union — in Indiana, for example, the government stopped collecting dues on behalf of the union. Membership collapsed by 80, 90 percent. … I would guess the Supreme Court is not going to overturn this. It is really quite loathe to overturning longstanding arrangements. … There are ways in which it could rule in a less radical way. For example, it could say that these workers don’t have to be deemed state workers which would be slightly different from saying you’re a state worker, you now have to pay into a union. So I suspect they are going to look for a way to be less sweeping in their ruling.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

It’s a tax, what difference does it matter? Eat your peas.

arnold ziffel on January 21, 2014 at 9:13 PM

“Unless you force people into these unions, they generally don’t go.”

And the SCOTUS has a problem with forcing people into programs they don’t want? Just call it a tax.

de rigueur on January 21, 2014 at 9:14 PM

Shut up Krauthammer. Now there’s no way that the withering lily John Roberts is ever going to rule against Labor.

besser tot als rot on January 21, 2014 at 9:15 PM

Don’t forget,
the thug has a pen !

burrata on January 21, 2014 at 9:16 PM

I’ve never seen a poor union boss.

KMC1 on January 21, 2014 at 9:16 PM

95% of my dues goes to the friggin international. its a bs ponzi scheme that enriches democrats and their donor union bosses.

Murphy9 on January 21, 2014 at 9:18 PM

“Union dues are a tax.” –John Roberts

ElectricPhase on January 21, 2014 at 9:21 PM

I would guess the Supreme Court is not going to overturn this. It is really quite loathe to overturning longstanding arrangements.

I’m sorry, but “deeming” people who receive state support as being state employees is not a longstanding arrangement.

worldtvlr on January 21, 2014 at 9:23 PM

The fact that it is just government coercion keeping unions afloat is the best reason to rule against this “law”

SouthernRoots on January 21, 2014 at 9:26 PM

Unions are toast and John Roberts will be our ace in the whole.

NeoKong on January 21, 2014 at 9:35 PM

The ONLY people in the union with fully funded pensions – are the union bosses. Go figure.

GarandFan on January 21, 2014 at 9:38 PM

Unions are nothing but a thug branch of the DimocRat party and the Federal Government machine to further the fleecing of the American Taxpayer.

It’s nothing but yet another huge scam to defraud taxpayer money. They all should be dissolved and outlawed. If that can’t be done, they should be strangled of dues until they whither and die.

And we need a law stating that no taxpayer money will go to any unions for any reason. We would save literally 10′s if not 100′s of billions each year.

Meople on January 21, 2014 at 9:42 PM

Unions are toast and John Roberts will be our ace in the whole.

NeoKong on January 21, 2014 at 9:35 PM

That’s all one word, and your spelling is terrible.

ElectricPhase on January 21, 2014 at 9:42 PM

Just “deem” everyone receiving welfare and food stamps a state employee and bam! Unemployment is 0% plus you get a 1/4 back as dues direct to the unions (democrat) pockets. Democrat voters for life, democrat politicians for life. It’s a win-win!

NancyWhisky on January 21, 2014 at 9:43 PM

Couldn’t there also be a constitutional challenge to forced unionization? It sure seems to me that if you have freedom of association, you also have freedom *not* to associate.

Mohonri on January 21, 2014 at 9:44 PM

I would expect that the court will say that the home based providers cannot be deemed state employees. If the basis for that designation was that they were benefiting from money paid to eligible recipients then a next step would be to make food stamps and welfare recipients state employees too.

State employees, especially union members, are entitled to State paid vacation, sick leave, retirement, and health insurance, aren’t they? They are also supposed to comply with the collective bargaining contract, something that I am sure all the home-based providers are completely familiar with.

Roberts is an incrementalist. The incremental approach is to say that receiving payments (probably split hairs and say those payment are not salary or wages) from the State (via eligible recipients) does not make the providers into State employees.

If you really wanted to make a Governor regret deeming people as employees, though it would possibly butress unions, the court could require compliance with fair labor standards, payment of overtime, provision of sick and vacation leave as well as retirement benefits and health insurance. If the State were forced to treat all these folks as full-time State employees with appropriate salary or wages I think the State might reconsider because of the cost.

We’ll see.

Russ808 on January 21, 2014 at 9:54 PM

uh oh!

KOOLAID2 on January 21, 2014 at 10:17 PM

EO!

KOOLAID2 on January 21, 2014 at 10:41 PM

Will Doctors and other medical professionals who provide services to Medicaid patients be deemed to be state employees and forced to join the Union too?

Unions should not be able to force any American citizen to join the Union or to pay Union dues.

wren on January 22, 2014 at 12:33 AM

I’m sorry, but “deeming” people who receive state support as being state employees is not a longstanding arrangement.

worldtvlr on January 21, 2014 at 9:23 PM

The longstanding arrangement he’s referring to is the “release government workers from the obligation to actually pay into a union” bit, something which really would hammer the public sector unions hard. Although he’s also saying they’re more likely to just curb the particular overreach that you refer to, rather than making a decision with larger ramifications. Which is better than nothing, I guess.

Ramadahl on January 22, 2014 at 12:40 AM

The unions have been so successful in gaining…buying political support that they dug their own graves.

If they hadn’t had all these statutes enacted to get free stuff for workers, they would still be needed. They put themselves out of business.

PattyJ on January 22, 2014 at 1:24 AM

John Roberts will be our ace in the whole.

NeoKong on January 21, 2014 at 9:35 PM

I hate that SOB and wonder what the NSA had on him.

John the Libertarian on January 22, 2014 at 3:51 AM

Obama has an Executive Order in waiting to solve that problem…

albill on January 22, 2014 at 6:42 AM

I would guess the Supreme Court is not going to overturn this. It is really quite loathe to overturning longstanding arrangements.

Only if you judge those arrangements to be fair, equitable and to not infringe on your constitutional rights.

With all due respect to the good doctor, his statement aptly displays exactly what is wrong with our country and contemporary Republican thinking. It lacks the courage to pursue well-reasoned, righteous ends.

Just because a decision was formed by other courts does not mean it is right or just. It requires perspective and context for the time and circumstances under which such decision were formed.

I dare say the right of free association and free speech outweighs the tyrannical hand of government to impose its will haphazardly upon the people of our nation.

Haven’t we had enough of government intrusion on our individual rights?

That being said, the one primary thing the Roberts Court lacks is courage and I have zero expectation of a positive outcome for the people of our nation.

Marcus Traianus on January 22, 2014 at 7:20 AM

I hate that SOB and wonder what the NSA had on him.

John the Libertarian on January 22, 2014 at 3:51 AM

The rumor online is that John Roberts adopted his two children from
Ireland illegally.

Amjean on January 22, 2014 at 8:26 AM

The state’s theory is that receiving Medicaid funds for providing in-home care renders the care-giver a state employee. Why not an independent contractor?

Barnestormer on January 22, 2014 at 10:02 AM

I asked this on yesterday’s thread. If these parents are now considered state employees, will medicaid have to pay them at least minimum wage? What about overtime? Most parents of disabled children are on call 24/7/365. What would that do to the state budget.

hopeful on January 22, 2014 at 11:43 AM

95% of my dues goes to the friggin international. its a bs ponzi scheme that enriches democrats and their donor union bosses.

Murphy9 on January 21, 2014 at 9:18 PM

What have you done to stop it?

V7_Sport on January 22, 2014 at 3:34 PM