Opinon: Using the courts to destroy unions


WASHINGTON — Many conservatives believe in the untrammeled rights of employers. Consequently, they despise unions. They also can’t stand it that organized labor usually backs Democrats and they especially detest public employee unions which, by their very nature, advocate for government.

For decades, these same conservatives criticized the politicization of the courts, accusing liberals of “inventing rights,” “making new law” and indulging in “judicial activism.”

And one more thing: Conservatives of late have charged that liberals refuse to acknowledge the importance of allowing revered and useful social institutions to thrive and maintain their organizational integrity. So, for example, the right insists that religiously linked organizations opposed to contraception must under no circumstances be required to cover birth control in their health plans.

This bundle of contradictions is on open display in the case of Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. Argued this week before the Supreme Court, the suit is an effort to overturn 41 years of settled precedent for the purpose of crippling the American labor movement.

The claimant, Mark Janus, an Illinois state social worker, argues that his First Amendment liberties are violated because he has to pay an “agency fee” to the union even though he is not a member and might disagree with its politics.

On the merits, nothing about the agency fee deprives Janus of his right as a citizen to speak out as he wishes. And the idea behind collective bargaining is that when a majority of employees decide to join a union, its bargaining typically produces higher pay and benefits for the entire bargaining unit. Agency fees pay for this collective effort.

This is why conservative money and influence came together to bring this case. And, as University of Baltimore law professor Garrett Epps observed in The Atlantic, the litigation strategy of “the powerful anti-union advocacy network” was to avoid creating a factual record on the agency-fee issue in the lower courts.

Instead, the anti-labor consortium sought to force the case up to the Supreme Court at a moment when it hoped a conservative majority would reflexively take its side.

To know how political this case is, consider Justice Anthony Kennedy’s polemical response to the solicitor general of Illinois, which sided with the union. Kennedy seemed incredulous that the state could have a stable partnership with a union that was fighting for “a greater size workforce, against privatization, against merit promotion … for teacher tenure, for higher wages, for massive government, for increasing bonded indebtedness, for increasing taxes.”

Kennedy asked a pro-union lawyer: “If you do not prevail in this case, the unions will have less political influence; yes or no?” The answer was yes, a victory for Janus would curb labor’s political power. To which Kennedy candidly commented: “Isn’t that the end of this case?”

But in making a point of his own, Kennedy also underscored that a labor setback would clearly benefit the Republican Party.

The very slim hope of dodging a blatantly partisan decision rests with Chief Justice John Roberts.

A 5-to-4 anti-labor ruling would remind us why Senate Republicans refused even to consider Judge Merrick Garland’s nomination for the seat now occupied by Justice Neil Gorsuch. It would reveal a truly activist court mired in politics — and a long way from Roberts’ vision of judges who only call balls and strikes.

Writes for The Washington Post.



Reader Comments ...


Next Up in Opinion

READERS WRITE: SEPT. 25

Liberals’ policies, not guns, to blame for gun ‘crisis’ A recent letter asserted, “No easy solution for U.S. firearms crisis” (Readers Write, Sept. 9). On the contrary, we have a behavior crisis. In decades past, firearms were more easily available to the public than presently. Not once did the six guns in my room fire...
Opinion: Is Senate committee equipped to grasp Kavanaugh allegations?

For all their well-learned politesse, the Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have scarcely been able to conceal their determination to get Christine Blasey Ford out of their hair. Ford is the last obstacle to confirming conservative Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. And she’s a formidable one. She has alleged...
Opinion: The burden of proof for Kavanaugh

Last week, I wrote a column taking the view that conservatives supporting Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court because they hope he will overturn Roe v. Wade should be willing to encourage his withdrawal if his accuser testifies credibly against him and the cloud over his nomination can’t be expeditiously cleared up. Even if...
Opinion: What the Times misses about poverty

It’s an affecting story. Matthew Desmond, writing in The New York Times Magazine, profiles Vanessa Solivan, a poor single mother raising three children. Vanessa works as a home health aide, yet she and her three adolescent children are often reduced to sleeping in her car, a 2004 Chrysler Pacifica. In the morning, she takes her two daughters...
Opinion: Days of fear, years of obstruction

Lehman Bros. failed 10 years ago. The U.S. economy was already in a recession, but Lehman’s fall and the chaos that followed sent it off a cliff: Six and a half million jobs would be lost during the next year. We didn’t experience a full replay of the Great Depression, and some have argued that the system worked, in the sense that policymakers...
More Stories