Supreme Court Strikes Down Union Attempt to Abridge Employer Free Speech Rights!!!

Fox Mulder · 06-20-2008, 12:22 AM

This is a great example of how unions are fleecing the country. This was a "pandering to unions" law in liberal California (obtained by the enormous political clout since unions have most California Democrats in their back pockets) that essentially attempted to abridge employer's constitutional rights to free speech. Read first about what they did:

NFIB.com - Unions Attack Employers' First Amendment Right to Communicate With Their Employees

Quote:

Unions Attack Employers' First Amendment Right to Communicate With Their Employees
03/12/2007

NFIB's Legal Foundation petitions U.S. Supreme Court to hear critical labor case

Washington, D.C.--Unions facing declining membership nationwide are trying to use state governments to silence employers from speaking with their employees about the potential disadvantages of unionization. In California, this attack on employers' free speech was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In response to this ruling, the National Federation of Independent Business Legal Foundation is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and protect employers' constitutional right to communicate with their employees.

The case at issue is Chamber of Commerce v. Lockyer, which challenges the constitutionality of California Bill No. 1889. The California statute focuses on preventing all employers that receive state funds from exercising their rights under the National Labor Relations Act and the First Amendment to speak with their employees about unionization. The Ninth Circuit decision upheld this law, overruling the district court and two Ninth Circuit panels that found in favor of employers.

"This law will have a significant adverse impact on small businesses," said Karen Harned, executive director of NFIB's Legal Foundation. "Many California small businesses receive all of their operating revenue from the state for services provided under state programs. If the California statute is upheld, these businesses will be forced to give up their rights to communicate with their employees about unionization and the potential negative impacts it could have on their business."

If the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to accept the case, the ruling would effectively serve as a gag order on employers' ability to properly inform employees about labor unions. With such laws being proposed by labor groups in more and more states and municipalities, the outcome of this case will extend far beyond California. In fact, the Second and the Seventh Circuits also have considered similar cases with both ruling to protect employers' free-speech rights. This inter-circuit split strongly supports the need for Supreme Court review of this case.

"The Supreme Court has an opportunity and an obligation to protect the rights of small-business owners to freely communicate to their own employees about union activities," said Harned. "NFIB's Legal Foundation urges the Court to grant review of this case."

And today the result--fortunately the law was struck down by a 7-2 margin. A victory for free speech and the Constitution and another strike against union fleecing!

Supreme Court strikes down California law on unions - Yahoo! News

Quote:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court struck down on Thursday a California law that prohibits employers from using state money to influence employees' views on unions in their workplace.

By a 7-2 vote, the high court sided with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce business group and with the Bush administration. It ruled federal labor law pre-empted the California law adopted in 2000 and the first of its kind in the nation.

The law prohibits employers who receive state funds and grants from using the money to "assist, promote or deter union organizing." It also requires companies to maintain detailed records on how public money has been spent.

Opponents also argued the California law unconstitutionally restricted employers' speech in violation of their First Amendment rights.

California defended the law and said it simply sought to make sure the state does not subsidize an employer's union activities. The law allows the state to be neutral in labor disputes, California's lawyers said.

The Chamber of Commerce challenged the law in 2002 and won before a federal judge. But the full U.S. appeals court in California upheld the law, prompting the business group to appeal to the Supreme Court.

New York, which has a similar law, and 17 other states supported California. A number of states have been considering adopting similar laws if the California law was upheld.

The court's majority opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, said the law was preempted by the National Labor Relations Act. Congress in adopting the federal law expressly sought to protect free debate, he said.

Alien Allen · 06-20-2008, 05:48 PM

Gonna love watching the liberals try to defend that law which thank fully was blown up by the SC

You Californians come up with some of the most asinine crap. And I gather since it went to the SC that the judges in CA gave this attack on free speech a free ride.

Morons.

Minor Axis · 06-20-2008, 07:50 PM

I've not had a chance to examine this issue, but I can say it's a much better situation when employers are fleecing their employees... They are not perfect but unions exist for a reason.

Alien Allen · 06-20-2008, 08:07 PM

unions are outdated and do as much harm as good to employees.

With lawyers and the govt unions are not needed.

Yeah heaven forbid an employer actually talk to their employees about options. shesh this is crazy the way free speech is picked and chosen by some.

Minor Axis · 06-20-2008, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alien Allen

unions are outdated and do as much harm as good to employees.

With lawyers and the govt unions are not needed.

Not to sound argumentative, but in some companies, they are very much needed. Lawyers are expensive and a long drawn out exercise while your out of a job. Unions ensure you get a fair shake; The government? I can tell your kidding about that. If it's not sexual harrasement or racially related, the government does not get involved.

Quote:

Yeah heaven forbid an employer actually talk to their employees about options. shesh this is crazy the way free speech is picked and chosen by some.

Alien Allen · 06-21-2008, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minor Axis

Not to sound argumentative, but in some companies, they are very much needed. Lawyers are expensive and a long drawn out exercise while your out of a job. Unions ensure you get a fair shake; The government? I can tell your kidding about that. If it's not sexual harrasement or racially related, the government does not get involved.

I was not kidding about the govt part. My point is there is a double edged sword to look after employees. If you ever owned a business you would understand. If one owns a small business they either are paranoid about the govt or a lawsuit destroying them or they flaunt everything they can get away with hoping to never get caught. I happen to be an honest one so I do not know how the dark sides lives with themselves.

Minor Axis · 06-21-2008, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fox Mulder

This is a great example of how unions are fleecing the country.

Unions try to protect their turf just like employers. Fleecing the country is your slant on the situation and it's a poor example if you are trying to illustrate all/any unions are evil.

Fox Mulder · 06-21-2008, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minor Axis

Unions try to protect their turf just like employers. Fleecing the country is your slant on the situation and it's a poor example if you are trying to illustrate all/any unions are evil.

Its a perfect example, actually. I could provide more cases overturned by courts where unions have attempted to silence opposition. They play hardball and they absolutely do NOT have employee's best interests in mind, they have their own.

As the Alien pointed out, unions are outdated--membership in private unions is dwindling because of it. Government unions of course are insulated and they are the worst offenders at fleecing the public--we are all paying very dearly government unions--primarily in our education system which is suffering dramatically at the expense of unions strong arm tactics---harming children so that union employees can benefit--disgusting!

Minor Axis · 06-21-2008, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fox Mulder

They play hardball and they absolutely do NOT have employee's best interests in mind, they have their own.

You don't know what your talking about.

Fox Mulder · 06-21-2008, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minor Axis

You don't know what your talking about.

I know exactly what I'm talking about. You are biased on the issue because you as a union member are reaping the benefits of extortion--I would expect you to defend it as long as your bread continues to be buttered. If you were a business owner taking the risks and creating jobs, you'd have a 180 degree different view. Unions have destoyed tens of thousands of good paying jobs all in the name of greed.

Peter Parka · 06-21-2008, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fox Mulder

I know exactly what I'm talking about. You are biased on the issue because you as a union member are reaping the benefits of extortion--I would expect you to defend it as long as your bread continues to be buttered. If you were a business owner taking the risks and creating jobs, you'd have a 180 degree different view. Unions have destoyed tens of thousands of good paying jobs all in the name of greed.

Hmmm...I'm old enough to remember the miners strike over here. It was the government trying to destroy their jobs, the unions were fighting to keep them.

Minor Axis · 06-21-2008, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fox Mulder

I know exactly what I'm talking about.

No you don't.

Fox Mulder · 06-21-2008, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Parka

Hmmm...I'm old enough to remember the miners strike over here. It was the government trying to destroy their jobs, the unions were fighting to keep them.

No doubt the unions want to keep the jobs. The problem is through extortive measures they force companies to move the jobs overseas when if they were more reasonable there would be a compromise. And unfortunately its not just the union stiffs that lose jobs--all the ancillary jobs go with it.

Bottom line is unions are communist organizations--it is no different in any way than a communist regime--that is they attempt to change the laws of supple and demand and interfere with free market capitalism, which ultimately results in a negative effect on labor and the economy.

Minor Axis · 06-21-2008, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fox Mulder

No doubt the unions want to keep the jobs. The problem is through extortive measures they force companies to move the jobs overseas when if they were more reasonable there would be a compromise. And unfortunately its not just the union stiffs that lose jobs--all the ancillary jobs go with it.

Bottom line is unions are communist organizations--it is no different in any way than a communist regime--that is they attempt to change the laws of supple and demand and interfere with free market capitalism, which ultimately results in a negative effect on labor and the economy.

Any reader who want to believe this line bull shit, be my guest. As free trade agreements fall into place, corporations are falling all over themselves to get incredibly cheap labor in a manufacturing environment minus troublesome environmental laws. It's their heaven. If you want to blame U.S. workers who demand a fair piece of the pie, that's your right too.

Alien Allen · 06-21-2008, 05:20 PM

The unions built their own bed due to greed. Started with the UAW and there demands going back to the 70's. At the time the Big 3 were the only game in town pretty much so the unions played hard ball. They wanted guaranteed hours , ridiculous benefit packages , rediculous wages, yada, ya da. Then when it got tough and market share was going down the drain they still played hard ball and ignored the obvious. That put pressure on suppliers and all involved to cut costs. Well the costs are cut to the bone ,, the jobs are gone and now the unions whine.

Unions serve to pad the pocket books of their elite leadership. They protect the worst of the worst workers from being legitimately fired and meanwhile do zip to protect those with honest grievances. Throw in race and it gets even worse.

The only unions left with real power are the govt ones and the teachers. once the NEA gets their ass broken and smacked into sensibility it will be a start to turning things around

06-20-2008, 05:48 PM	#2
Alien Allen Insane Pesky Nitpcker Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: None of your business :D Posts: 2,990 Tokenz: 22,173	Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Union Attempt to Abridge Employer Free Speech Rights!! Gonna love watching the liberals try to defend that law which thank fully was blown up by the SC You Californians come up with some of the most asinine crap. And I gather since it went to the SC that the judges in CA gave this attack on free speech a free ride. Morons.

06-20-2008, 07:50 PM	#3
Minor Axis Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Between Canada and Mexico Posts: 1,633 Tokenz: 27,740	Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Union Attempt to Abridge Employer Free Speech Rights!! I've not had a chance to examine this issue, but I can say it's a much better situation when employers are fleecing their employees... They are not perfect but unions exist for a reason. __________________ "I see in your eyes the same fear that would take the heart of me. A day may come when the courage of Men fails, when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship, but it is not this day. An hour of wolves and shattered shields when the Age of Men comes crashing down, but it is not this day! This day we fight! By all that you hold dear on this good earth, I bid you stand, Men of the West!" Last edited by Minor Axis; 06-20-2008 at 07:55 PM.

06-20-2008, 08:07 PM	#4
Alien Allen Insane Pesky Nitpcker Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: None of your business :D Posts: 2,990 Tokenz: 22,173	Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Union Attempt to Abridge Employer Free Speech Rights!! unions are outdated and do as much harm as good to employees. With lawyers and the govt unions are not needed. Yeah heaven forbid an employer actually talk to their employees about options. shesh this is crazy the way free speech is picked and chosen by some.

06-21-2008, 05:20 PM	#15
Alien Allen Insane Pesky Nitpcker Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: None of your business :D Posts: 2,990 Tokenz: 22,173	Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Union Attempt to Abridge Employer Free Speech Rights!! The unions built their own bed due to greed. Started with the UAW and there demands going back to the 70's. At the time the Big 3 were the only game in town pretty much so the unions played hard ball. They wanted guaranteed hours , ridiculous benefit packages , rediculous wages, yada, ya da. Then when it got tough and market share was going down the drain they still played hard ball and ignored the obvious. That put pressure on suppliers and all involved to cut costs. Well the costs are cut to the bone ,, the jobs are gone and now the unions whine. Unions serve to pad the pocket books of their elite leadership. They protect the worst of the worst workers from being legitimately fired and meanwhile do zip to protect those with honest grievances. Throw in race and it gets even worse. The only unions left with real power are the govt ones and the teachers. once the NEA gets their ass broken and smacked into sensibility it will be a start to turning things around

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Supreme Court upholds voter ID law	GraceAbounds	Politics	13	04-29-2008 09:04 AM
U.S. Supreme Court will hear Utah case on police searches	boombala	The Latest News	0	03-25-2008 06:52 PM
Court Rules For Free Speech Online	mdvaldosta	Computers	0	11-21-2006 11:20 PM