Supreme Court Decision On Labor Unions Could Jeopardize Funding Pipeline To Progressive Initiatives
Unions tend to be big supporters of more liberal-leaning candidates and programs, both of which depend on the millions of dollars flowing in from the organizations. But that funding could be greatly diminished with the Supreme Court's ruling.
The Supreme Court decision striking down mandatory union fees for government workers was not only a blow to unions. It will also hit hard at a vast network of groups dedicated to advancing liberal policies and candidates. Some of these groups work for immigrants and civil rights; others produce economic research; still others turn out voters or run ads in Democratic campaigns. Together, they have benefited from tens of millions of dollars a year from public-sector unions funding now in jeopardy because of the prospective decline in union revenue. (Scheiber, 7/1)
As many as 80,000 Illinois home health care workers will get a second shot at recovering $32 million in union fees, following the U.S. Supreme Courts landmark decision earlier this week in a case over payments to unions. The Supreme Court on Thursday ordered the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its decision last year in a case involving whether the home health care workers, paid with Medicaid dollars, should be able to recoup money the state took out of their paychecks for fair share union fees between 2008 and 2014. Those fair share fees covered the costs of collective bargaining even though those workers were not union members. (Schencker, 6/29)
紼梗硃紳滄堯勳梭梗泭
On the final day of the Supreme Court term last week, Justice Elena Kagan sounded an alarm. The courts five conservative members, citing the First Amendment, had just dealt public unions a devastating blow. The day before, the same majority had used the First Amendment to reject a California law requiring religiously oriented crisis pregnancy centers to provide women with information about abortion. Conservatives, said Justice Kagan, who is part of the courts four-member liberal wing, were weaponizing the First Amendment. (Liptak, 6/30)
