BY Moshe Marvit

– The Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Harris v. Quinn yesterday, a case that threatened to be the worst decision for unions in decades.  When the class-action suit was first brought in 2010, at issue was whether unionized home healthcare workers who are covered by collective bargaining agreements, could be subject to a fair share provision that requires non-union members to pay for the benefits they receive from the union.  This remained the issue when it arrived at the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in 2011.  However, once the case arrived at the Supreme Court in 2013, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation raised the stakes and argued that anything short of a right-to-work model—under which any employee covered by a collective bargaining agreement could forego paying any dues—for all public employees violated the First Amendment.  In the Court’s decision, a five-Justice majority held that fair share provisions for home healthcare workers were unconstitutional, and indicated repeatedly that the 1977 case that allows such provisions for all public sector employees is on shaky ground.

Much of the media coverage of Harris v. Quinn has called the case a loss for labor, but indicated that it could have been much worse. The majority stopped short of explicitly overruling Abood v. Detroit Board of Education—the 1977 case that established the framework for fair share fees in the public sector—an outcome that could have spelled financial ruin for public-sector unions. However, anti-union forces are already waiting in the wings with further challenges: Several lower court cases currently under consideration will likely constitute the next round of attacks on the stability of both public and private sector unions.

In Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, several California teachers represented by the anti-union Center for Individual Rights have an appeal pending in the Ninth Circuit, where they are challenging the state’s agency shop law. Unlike in Harris, the teachers are not making an argument that they are not public employees that are covered by the precedent set by Abood.  Instead they argue that all fair share (or agency shop—the phrases are fairly interchangeable) arrangements are unconstitutional as applied to public sector employees.  Today’s decision in Harris, combined with earlier decisions, have laid the groundwork for the conservative justices to perform a full reconsideration of right to work in the public sector.

In the private sector context, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation have a case in Texas challenging union security clauses under the Railway Labor Act, which covers railway and airline workers.  In Serna v. Transport Workers Union of America, several dissident airline employees argue that the requirement that workers opt-out of union membership should be replaced with an opt-in procedure.  In the alternative, they argue that the requirement that workers who opt-out of membership must renew their objections each year be held unconstitutional.  Though these issues may seem technical, they place at risk the way that workers finance unions.

In Knox v. SEIU, Justice Alito, writing for the majority, invited challenges to the agency shop, writing, “Our cases to date have tolerated this impingement and we do not revisit today whether the court’s former cases have given adequate recognition to the critical First Amendment rights at stake.”  Many saw Harris v. Quinn as a response to that invitation.  But in Harris, Justice Alito, again writing for the majority, made clear that since home healthcare workers were not “full-fledged” public employees, the Court did not need to consider whether Abood should be overruled.  Instead, in Harris, the majority engaged in (the words of the dissenting Justices), “gratuitous dicta critiquing Abood’s foundations.” It’s hard to see this as anything other than another invitation to strike down fair share arrangements, and another step toward establishing a judicially created right-to-work model for all public-sector employees.

Source: http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/16898/what_harris_means_for_workers_rights

By Joel Mathis

– “Gov. Chris Christie signed a $32.5 billion state budget today that all but abandons a first-term plan to repair New Jersey’s derelict pension system, slicing $1.57 billion from a payment required by law for public workers’ retirement funds,” the Star-Ledger reports.

The budget offers increases in funding to schools and hospitals. Christie vetoed Democratic bills that would’ve raised $1.1 billion for the pension funds by taxing millionaires and businesses.

“As I have said before, I strongly believe that punitively raising taxes on our already overtaxed residents and small business owners is not the answer to the state’s short- and long-term fiscal challenges,” Christie wrote in his veto message.

PhillyLabor.com Editorial – It is understandable that Gov. Christie does not want to raise taxes on NJ residents who are already paying an absurd amount of taxes. However, why does his solution have to come only on the backs of the working men and women of NJ and not at least share the burden by imposing a millionaire’s tax on the wealthiest 1%. Just another right wing politician raging a war on working people! And some people want this guy to be our next President???? God Forbid!

Source: http://www.phillymag.com/news/2014/07/01/christie-signs-jersey-budget-deep-pension-cuts/

By PhillyLabor.com

On Wednesday June 25, Philadelphia’s exclusive labor talk radio program, Today In PhillyLabor, which airs every Wednesday evening from 6pm-8pm on Philadelphia’s legendary talk radio station, WWDB 860 AM, took a giant leap forward in reaching its goal of becoming a primary voice and media platform representing the Philadelphia area labor movement by officially welcoming Philadelphia Council AFL-CIO President Pat Eiding to the show as a new co-host.

“Pat will facilitate his co-hosting duties both live in the studio and via live call-in segments on a weekly basis and will provide the show with a level of expertise and credibility worthy of representing the vast Philadelphia labor community as a credible news source,” says co-host and PhillyLabor.com president, Joe Doc Jr. “We could not be more excited about having Pat Eiding on the broadcast. His perspective and insight on issues related to the Philadelphia area labor movement and beyond are so valuable to the program. It really does give our listeners the inside scoop. We are very fortunate to have him on board,” says Doc Jr.

Pat Eiding’s Goals For The Show Include The Following:

“Working People need a voice. That’s why I’m thrilled to have the radio show and be a part of it,” said Eiding. “We want to make sure that we get the message out that we represent all working people and we are committed to protecting their rights and accomplishments, particularly in the face of anti-union political agendas. The radio program is a great platform to do that.”

Rave Reviews

The show has also been received rave reviews throughout the Phila area labor community by both labor leaders and political leaders who have been featured guests on the show as well as from rank and file union members who tune in each week to enjoy the broadcast. Echoing the sentiments of many, Ryan Boyer, Business Manager of the Laborer’s District Council, said during his on air segment, “This show is exactly what labor needs to voice it’s issues and agendas”. We need to support it and help take it all the way”.

“We’ve already been asked to renew for a full year by the station and national labor talk radio shows are taking notice and wanting to piggy back off of our success, says show producer and co-host Joe Krause of Jakib Media. It’s a great feeling to see that people are taking notice”

About Today In PhillyLabor Radio/Podcasts/List of Current Guests/Upcoming Guests

Today In PhillyLabor presents a positive insiders look at the Philadelphia area labor movement and features the region’s top labor, political, business and professional leaders every week as well as provides a news, information, communications and educational resources to the Philadelphia area labor community.

To Listen to The Podcasts and view the list of guests from the first 3 months of the show as well as to see the upcoming guests on the show, Go To: http://phillylabor.com/3716-2/

BY David Moberg

– On Thursday, the Supreme Court unanimously agreed that President Obama overstepped the limits of his power in January 2012 when he appointed three members to the National Labor Relations Board during a Senate recess.

As part of their strategy to stymie all administrative initiatives, Senate Republicans had previously blocked consideration of Obama’s nominations, leaving the formally five-member NLRB—the principal enforcer of federal labor laws—without the majority it needed to function. Obama responded by appointing three new board members during the holiday recess, circumventing the Republican minority’s hindrance of the Senate approval process and the president’s appointment powers.

After losing a case before the NLRB in 2012, Noel Canning, a Pepsi-Cola bottler in Washington state, challenged the validity of the recess appointments; in January 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit determined those appointments were indeed illegal. At the time, union leaders were outraged that the appellate court’s decision had effectively granted a Republican minority in the Senate the power to shut down the principal government agency protecting workers’ rights to organize. The Obama administration appealed the decision to the Supreme Court; in the meantime, the NLRB continued to operate.

When the Supreme Court decided on Thursday that Obama’s 2012 actions had exceeded his authority, AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka responded with an even-tempered observation: Republican obstructionism had forced the president to act, and now the country’s highest court had simply “cleared up the legal landscape on a question both Democratic and Republican presidents have faced for decades.” Most importantly for labor in the short run, the current NLRB members were approved last year through the standard appointment process—meaning the board can continue its work unimpeded for now.

The five-justice moderate majority, led by Justice Stephen Breyer, reaffirmed the longstanding power of the president to make appointments during a recess without Senate approval. However, they clarified that recesses had to be at least 10 days long for him to do so—and the party in control could design the recess as a series of short breaks punctuated by “pro forma” sessions, as Republicans did in 2012 to try to hinder the nominations. The justices also decided that a recess could be between the two sessions of each Congress chamber or within a session.

The four justices on the Right, whose dissenting opinion was written by Justice Antonin Scalia, would have much more greatly restricted presidential recess appointments. In general, Republicans have portrayed Obama as an extreme abuser of presidential power and privilege, even though he has made far fewer recess appointments than any of his four immediate predecessors. For example, Ronald Reagan made 232 such appointments in his presidency; so far, Obama has made just 32.

Although the Supreme Court’s decision tilts slightly toward the executive branch, which could now be considered moderately pro-labor, the battle for political power looms as large as ever on the organizing landscape. Democrats finally changed Senate rules in November 2013 to prevent minority filibusters from blocking executive branch appointments. As a result, Obama should not need to use recess appointments at all to get around minority Republican intransigence. But Thursday’s decision still gives a determined opposition party power to limit recess lengths if it controls the House or Senate. Given that each chamber is involved in setting the recess of the other, this could cause complications for Obama should Republicans take the reins in either of them.

For that matter, if the Republicans win the Senate this fall, they could reject all of Obama’s appointments outright. And although all five members of the NLRB will remain in office, having been approved through standard, non-recess procedures, the term of former union lawyer Nancy Schiffer ends in December—barely giving Obama and Senate Democrats time to approve a successor if such a scenario arises.

And though the decision temporarily works in favor of the labor movement, the fallout from the legal battle could disrupt and slow the work of the NLRB. Employers have challenged roughly 100 NLRB decisions made by the board members who had been appointed during the 2012 recess. If most of those employers continue to contest those cases rather than settle, the current NLRB will have to revisit them.

Given the NLRB’s track record, this could take quite some time: After a federal court ruled in 2010 that the Board had to have a three-person majority vote to decide cases, it took nearly three years for it to review about 100 disputed decisions, according to NLRB spokesperson Gregory King. That experience suggests that the NLRB could be tied up for many of the coming months revisiting cases from January 2012 to August 2013, which would interfere with its pressing new work.

In the end, it seems neither side in the legal battle had much to celebrate. Even as the White House criticized the decision, Forbes headlined its story, “Obama Loses on NLRB Recess Appointments, But Employers Unlikely to Win.” The Democratic majority now in place on the NLRB is indeed likely to rule much the same way as the one made through recess appointments—so a “loss” for employers will be a victory for many workers.

But many unions note that the decision does not resolve serious issues about democratic practice in Congress, particularly the Senate rules on debate and filibuster. As the Communications Workers of America stated in reaction to Thursday’s decision, “The Senate’s constitutional duty is to review the president’s nominees through ‘advice and consent’—not use parliamentary tricks to impede his policy agenda,” as the Republicans had done with the fight over recess appointments.

It is fitting that this legal fight over democracy and the appointments process revolved around an agency devoted to workers’ rights, given that the deepest challenge to democracy comes from the ways in which a plutocratic minority can manipulate the political system in ways that maintain its power at the expense of a working-class and middle-class majority. However, the Supreme Court, whatever its actions on recess appointments, is unlikely to be the venue where that more profound question is answered.

http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/16886/what_the_supreme_courts_noel_canning_decision_means_for_labor

By The PA. AFL-CIO

– President Bloomingdale and Secretary-Treasurer Snyder are helping kick-off a new innovative educational experience at Penn State University this week designed to help emerging union leaders further develop their skills to meet the future challenges.

The start of the Labor Leadership Institute begins at the Main Campus of Penn State University in State College, PA with an intensive four days of workshops and training sessions. Upon completion of these sessions, participants will be attending a series of three, two-day seminars during the year, and will graduate at the conclusion of the second four day seminar to be held next May.

The Penn State University School of Labor and Employment Relations and the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO are the co-sponsors of the Labor Leadership Training Institutes. The program is based upon a series of in-depth discussions with top officers from Pennsylvania’s leading unions. These discussions identified specific challenges facing labor unions in Pennsylvania and are incorporated into the training curriculum. The Leadership Training Institute is modeled after the successful Cornell University/NY State AFL-CIO Union Leadership Institute, which is one of the top advanced union leadership programs in the country.

President Bloomingdale and Secretary-Treasurer Snyder express their appreciation and gratitude to the leadership of all of the unions who participated in the discussions and the development of the curriculums. “Without the time and the valuable insight provided by Vice Presidents and our affiliates we would not have a program that is relevant and valuable to emerging leaders here in our State,” President Bloomingdale said.

President Bloomingdale and Secretary-Treasurer Snyder also expressed their thanks and appreciation to the dedication and efforts of Dr. Paul Clark, Professor and Director of the School of Labor and Employment Relations; Doug Allen, Professor of Practice of the School of labor and Employment Relations; and Stu Bass, Director of Keystone Development Partners. They are playing instrumental roles in not only bringing all of the pieces together, but also in helping conduct the workshops and training.

“We believe that this institute will help instill the spirit of organizing to create the culture of change needed to build and grow our unions and the labor movement for a better future for our unions, and for all of Pennsylvania’s working families,” Secretary-Treasurer Snyder said.

Another key to the success of the learning experience is diversity of union leadership and unions whom are participating in the program, including representatives from the building trades, industrial, service, and professional unions. Enrollment and diversity goals have been met for the 2014-2015 training programs.

To learn more about the Pennsylvania Labor Leadership Institute please visit their website at http://ler.la.psu.edu/lli.shtml.

Source: http://www.paaflcio.org/?p=4238