US Supreme Court Meltdown! Unions, Abortions, and Retirements [Trigger Warning] - P.O.W. Report

Thursday, June 28, 2018

US Supreme Court Meltdown! Unions, Abortions, and Retirements [Trigger Warning]

Supreme Court Rules: Workers no longer forced to pay union dues to organizations that violate their beliefs.

Two things to note before we get to the story:

1. This only affects government employees.

2. The ruling specifies that Government Union Employees have to affirmatively opt in to the unions, it is no longer an opt out process.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday dealt a major blow to organized labor. By a 5-to-4 vote, with the more conservative justices in the majority, the court ruled that government workers who choose not to join unions may not be required to help pay for collective bargaining.

The ruling means that public-sector unions across the nation, already under political pressure, could lose tens of millions of dollars and see their effectiveness diminished.

The court based its ruling on the First Amendment, saying that requiring payments to unions that negotiate with the government forces workers to endorse political messages that may be at odds with their beliefs.

Limiting the power of public unions has long been a goal of conservative groups. They seemed poised to succeed in the Supreme Court in 2016, when a majority of the justices looked ready to rule that the fees were unconstitutional.

But Justice Antonin Scalia died not long after the earlier case was argued, and it ended in a 4-to-4 deadlock. The new case, which had been filed in 2015, was waiting in the wings and soon reached the Supreme Court. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, President Trump’s Supreme Court appointee, voted with the majority.

The court overruled its 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which had made a distinction between two kinds of compelled payments. Forcing nonmembers to pay for a union’s political activities violated the First Amendment, the court said. But it was constitutional, the court added, to require nonmembers to help pay for the union’s collective bargaining efforts to prevent freeloading and ensure “labor peace.” [Source]

So, first things first in regards to unions...just like the HR department doesn't actually serve the employees, the Unions don't serve their members. Second things...Second? I have never met a single person that has ever liked the union. NOT EVEN UNION MEMBERS LIKE THE UNION!

It's an antiquated institution that only exists to serve it's own bureaucracy (see point 1) and in the 21st century does nothing more than making products excessively expensive and prevents smaller companies from being competitive and creating superior products and services. Case in point, look at the Alaska Marine Highway System, it's an ancient corporate union model that only has an income revenue of 30% compared to the total budget. Now if you look at the IFA structure, they have the exact reverse model; a non-profit organization that has an income revenue stream of 70% compared to it's budget.

But what about MUH Working Hours and Wages?

You may ask. We already have federal laws protecting workers hours and if you don't like the wages then leave. It's literally that simple. In the free market if a company doesn't have competitive wages and a good product/service then it will simply go bankrupt. By propping up said company with dues, tax breaks, etc...we aren't doing anybody a favor and creating angry employees and angry customers (see point 2).

I solidify my argument: 

Anywho, [here is the actual court case ruling in case you want to read it]

Supreme Court Backs Anti-Abortion Pregnancy Centers in Free Speech Case

WASHINGTON — Ruling for opponents of abortion on free speech grounds, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday that the State of California may not require religiously oriented “crisis pregnancy centers” to supply women with information about how to end their pregnancies.

The case was a clash between state efforts to provide women with facts about their medical options and First Amendment rulings that place limits on the government’s ability to compel people to say things at odds with their beliefs.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the five-justice conservative majority, accepted the free-speech argument, ruling that the First Amendment prohibits California from forcing the centers, which oppose abortion on religious grounds, to post notices about how to obtain the procedure. The centers seek to persuade women to choose parenting or adoption.

“Licensed clinics must provide a government-drafted script about the availability of state-sponsored services, as well as contact information for how to obtain them,” Justice Thomas wrote. “One of those services is abortion — the very practice that petitioners are devoted to opposing.”

California, he wrote, can use other means to tell women about the availability of abortion, including advertising. But “California cannot co-opt the licensed facilities to deliver its message for it,” he wrote.

The case was the first touching on abortion since Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, who sided with the majority, joined the court. While the decision’s legal analysis turned on the First Amendment, it was lost on no one that the justices most committed to defending abortion rights were all in dissent

Eh, the abortion debate is a tired one and a very complicated one. I don't buy into the rhetoric that it's a 'woman's choice'. In the age of 'equality' where 'men and women are equal' it begs the question, WHY THEN ARE MEN ALSO NOT HELD TO HAVE AN EQUAL DECISION ON AN ABORTION? Not allowing men to have a say in whether his partner has a child or goes through with an abortion is sexists.

Justice Kennedy retiring, giving Trump pivotal court pick

WASHINGTON (AP) — Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court’s decisive man in the middle on abortion, gay rights and other contentious issues, announced his retirement Wednesday, giving President Donald Trump a golden chance to cement conservative control of the nation’s highest court.

The 81-year-old Kennedy, often a voice of moderation over three decades on the court, provided the key vote on such closely divided issues as affirmative action, guns, campaign finance and voting rights in addition to same-sex marriage and the right to abortion.

Kennedy informed his colleagues of his plans, then went to the White House to meet with Trump, where the president said they talked for half an hour about a potential successor and other topics. The retirement will take effect at the end of July.

Send a tip or a story to 

Support this site and make a donation!

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.