Posts tagged Supreme Court
Supreme Court clears way for Trump to downsize the federal workforce
July 10, 2025 // The labor unions and nonprofit groups that sued over the downsizing offered the justices several examples of what would happen if it were allowed to take effect, including cuts of 40% to 50% at several agencies. Baltimore, Chicago and San Francisco were among cities that also sued. “Today’s decision has dealt a serious blow to our democracy and puts services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy. This decision does not change the simple and clear fact that reorganizing government functions and laying off federal workers en masse haphazardly without any congressional approval is not allowed by our Constitution,” the parties that sued said in a joint statement.
National Right to Work Foundation Files Legal Brief Defending Wisconsin Act 10 as Union Bosses Seek to Regain Coercive Powers
July 10, 2025 // The Foundation’s amicus brief also states that the Dane County Circuit Court failed to consider whether, instead of striking down Act 10 as a whole, it could have expanded the statute’s pro-employee liberty provisions to cover all public departments to correct the alleged imbalances the court perceives in the law. “[T]he Circuit Court could have expanded the protection of Act 10’s re-certification requirements to all public employees in the State,” the brief says. In addition to Act 10’s benefits for independent-minded public workers, public spending analyses indicate that the law has relieved Wisconsin taxpayers from the enormous financial weight of wasteful union contracts. Some estimates show that Act 10 has saved the state roughly $35 billion since it was enacted.
Supreme Court allows Trump mass layoffs to move forward
July 9, 2025 // “The plans themselves are not before this Court, at this stage, and we thus have no occasion to consider whether they can and will be carried out consistent with the constraints of law,” Sotomayor wrote. Since the start of the second Trump term, the Supreme Court has repeatedly lifted lower-court rulings restricting his actions, including in a ruling last month that restricted lower-court judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions. The case is Donald J. Trump, president of the United States, et al. v. American Federation of Government Employees, et al.
Op-ed: It’s Time to End Government Unions’ Post-Janus Coercion
July 8, 2025 // These include, but aren’t limited to: acknowledging the workers’ right to opt out of union membership and dues, but refusing to honor their request to do so except during an arbitrary, union-determined two-week “opt-out window” of which the worker is unaware; inviting union operatives to make high-pressure, often-deceptive recruiting pitches to all newly hired public employees while denying the same privilege to organizations anxious to offer the workers an alternative point of view; refusing to open mail suspected to contain member opt-out requests; passing laws and filing lawsuits intended to prevent disclosure of government employees’ contact information — which is clearly a matter of public record — solely to keep organizations such as the Freedom Foundation from informing workers about their constitutional right to decline union participation; arguing that Janus provides no protections for union members, not even a constitutionally protected right to resign from the union; and, when all else fails, simply forging an employee’s name on a dues-authorization form.
Pittsburgh-Area Coca-Cola Driver Slams Teamsters With Federal Charges for Threatening Firing Over Refusal to Fund Union Politics
July 7, 2025 // Hammaker’s charges go on to challenge the fact that Teamsters union officials’ policies force workers to “affirmatively opt out of paying for non-chargeable expenditures” (if such requests are accepted at all), as opposed to letting workers voluntarily opt in to such support. Moreover, “the Union has violated the Act by failing to inform [Hammaker] and similarly situated employees of the true amount of dues they are required to pay” under Beck to stay employed, the charges conclude.
Governments should protect workers, end cozy relationship with political allies
July 1, 2025 // Unions already collect hundreds of dollars — or more — each year from each member. They should be using that money to support members during strikes, not expecting employers to pay workers not to work. The misguided policy will likely raise costs for public and private employers, harm the majority of workers in the state and weaken the state’s unemployment insurance fund. The government should be neutral between employers and labor, not serve as muscle to force employers to finance a de facto strike fund on behalf of political allies. If lawmakers and public employers truly cared about fairness for workers and the disadvantaged who lose jobs, they’d stop helping unions build political war chests and start giving workers full transparency and choice.
Evansville Electrician Files Federal Charges Against IBEW Local 16 for Union Bosses’ $1.29 Million Retaliatory ‘Fine’
July 1, 2025 // Putting such restrictions on workers’ right to resign their union memberships has no basis in law. Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and U.S. Supreme Court decisions like Pattern Makers v. NLRB spell out that workers have a right to end union membership and union officials cannot require such membership as a condition of getting or keeping a job (though states that lack Right to Work laws like Indiana’s let union officials force workers to pay dues or be fired). Union officials also may not impose union discipline, like fines, on workers who aren’t members. In the interim between the two letters, IBEW Local 16 pursued union discipline against Head for “purchas[ing] a non-union electrical contractor and…decid[ing] not to sign a Letter of Assent” that would have likely handed the business over to union control without any kind of worker vote. Notably, the union’s discipline took place after Head’s March 27 union resignation – meaning Head was legally beyond the union’s powers to impose any sort of internal punishment.
Supreme Court likely to decide fate of federal unions
June 30, 2025 // How the Supreme Court will view the matter is anybody’s guess, though the Roberts Court has shown deference to the executive branch and a willingness to revisit precedent involving public sector unions. In its 2018 Janus v. AFSCME ruling, the court said public sector employees could not be forced to join a union as a condition of employment. Federal government collective bargaining is relatively recent, having only been codified in 1978. The Roberts Court may decide collective bargaining is a privilege, not a right, for federal workers.
Democracy in the Workplace Is Under Threat
June 30, 2025 // The National Labor Relations Board, which the NLRA created, initially agreed with the majority-of-a-unit standard. In a 1936 decision involving Chrysler, the board rejected a unionization election in which only 125 out of an eligible 700 workers had voted. While 97 percent of the voting workers supported organizing, the board rightly concluded that a mere 17 percent of workers didn’t represent the views of the majority. The law’s text required that ruling. But the NLRB reversed course within months, giving a minority of workers the power to determine the majority’s future in a case involving newspaper workers. In a separate decision, the board declared that it couldn’t require a majority of workers to vote in favor of unionization, nor could it require the lower bar of a quorum. The NLRB, in the 1930s, defended its rejection of the law’s plain text by saying that, with a majority requirement, “the purpose of the [NLRA] would be thwarted.” But the board itself is doing the thwarting of workers’ rights and workplace democracy.
Op-Ed: Public employees deserve truth from union officials
June 27, 2025 // In 2020, Colorado union officials gained mandatory collective bargaining affecting state employees. Three years ago, they landed compulsory organizing of many county workers. And the following year, Colorado lawmakers granted more favorable rules on how certain municipalities, universities, schools, and hospitals interact with and speak about unions. Now, union officials want to fundamentally change the state’s labor landscape once again.