Posts tagged Legal Aid Society
As threat of mass strike looms, some NYC legal service providers reach tentative agreements with unions
July 23, 2025 // Aaron Eisenberg, the political director at United Auto Workers Region 9A, told amNewYork that he hopes the agreements at Bronx Defenders and NYLAG will encourage other legal aid providers to meet demands and avoid a mass strike. Various union chapters within the Association of Legal Advocates and Attorneys-UAW are in active bargaining with management and have threatened to strike. A mass public interest attorney strike could take about 2,000 lawyers out of court, about 1,100 of whom work at the Legal Aid Society, where unionized employees have set a Friday deadline for a contract before walking out.
New proposed federal law would bar unions from promoting antisemitism
October 7, 2024 // Title VII of the Civil Rights Act allows employees not to pay dues or fees to a union based on their religious beliefs or practices. But Cassidy said many workers were unaware they have the right to pull their union dues from activities that have nothing to do with union bargaining for salaries and benefits. As part of the Senate committee’s probe into antisemitism, the senator also found that unions make it difficult to opt out of these unrelated costs — including bogging down workers with lawsuits that end up costing more than the actual dues. “Union members pay unions to represent before management. This legislation keeps unions focused on that,” said Cassidy.
The Liberty Justice Center Sues Union for Forcing Jewish Lawyers to Support Speech They Consider Antisemitic
April 12, 2024 // Congress recently launched an investigation into the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys due to whistleblower reports of antisemitism by union members. The Liberty Justice Center is suing the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys, Legal Aid Society, and the City of New York on behalf of Mr. Levine and Mr. Popper, alleging that these defendants are violating the attorneys’ First Amendment rights by forcing them to subsidize political speech as a condition of employment. The Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from compelling a person to subsidize a union’s speech. In Janus v. AFSCME, the Court held that a government could not force its employees to pay a union as a condition of their employment. And in Harris v. Quinn, the Court held that a government could not compel recipients of government funds, through a state program to provide services to other private individuals, to pay money to a union.