- Joined
- Feb 3, 2017
- Messages
- 21,507
- Reaction score
- 10,424
- Location
- NY
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
Two links, two points of view
https://cseany.org/workforce/janus-v-afscme-council-31/taylor-law-changes-a-big-win-for-csea/
ALBANY — In a major victory for CSEA, Gov. Andrew Cuomo recently signed legislation that changes the state’s Taylor Law to protect working people from the impending implications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s expected ruling in Janus v. AFSCME Council 31.
Here is a look at the changes to the Taylor Law, initially passed in 1967:
Duty of Fair Representation limited
The most important change to the Taylor Law relates to the Duty of Fair Representation.
The new legislation gives public employee unions the option not to provide representation to non-members in any disciplinary cases. Unions will not be required to offer any legal, economic, or job-related services beyond those provided in the collective bargaining agreement.
New employee information boost
The new legislation also states that public employers must notify an employee organization of new employees, and provide the following, within 30 days of employment:
name; address; job title; employing agency department or other operating unit; and work location.
Public employers must also allow a duly appointed representative to meet with new employees at the work site during work time for a reasonable amount of time without requiring employees to charge leave time. Additionally, employee organizations are now permitted to use electronic membership cards.
https://www.empirecenter.org/publications/senate-set-to-ok-union-trap-law/
A bill designed to make it harder for New York government workers to extricate themselves from labor union membership rolls is poised to move out of a key Senate committee next week. (reported before Cuomo signed)
The obvious answer is the U.S. Supreme Court case Janus v. AFSCME, which could effectively strike down, on First Amendment grounds, all state laws compelling government workers to pay a dues-like fee as a condition of employment. The case, in which the lead plaintiff is Illinois state government employee Mark Janus, will be argued in February and decided by the end of the current court term in June.
Odds seem to be in favor of Janus based on a case raising the same issues, Friedrichs v. California Teachers’ Association, which was argued in early 2016 but resulted in a 4-4 deadlock after the sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia, who was expected to vote in favor of the plaintiff.
Required to pay the same sum either way, most government workers now choose to sign up as union members, which allows them to vote in union elections and run for union office, as well as qualify for group discounts on consumer items such as movie tickets. But the value proposition of government union membership will change radically if workers are suddenly able to choose between paying dues and paying nothing at all.
Not sure which way I'm going on this one. I see both sides of this. Thoughts?
https://cseany.org/workforce/janus-v-afscme-council-31/taylor-law-changes-a-big-win-for-csea/
ALBANY — In a major victory for CSEA, Gov. Andrew Cuomo recently signed legislation that changes the state’s Taylor Law to protect working people from the impending implications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s expected ruling in Janus v. AFSCME Council 31.
Here is a look at the changes to the Taylor Law, initially passed in 1967:
Duty of Fair Representation limited
The most important change to the Taylor Law relates to the Duty of Fair Representation.
The new legislation gives public employee unions the option not to provide representation to non-members in any disciplinary cases. Unions will not be required to offer any legal, economic, or job-related services beyond those provided in the collective bargaining agreement.
New employee information boost
The new legislation also states that public employers must notify an employee organization of new employees, and provide the following, within 30 days of employment:
name; address; job title; employing agency department or other operating unit; and work location.
Public employers must also allow a duly appointed representative to meet with new employees at the work site during work time for a reasonable amount of time without requiring employees to charge leave time. Additionally, employee organizations are now permitted to use electronic membership cards.
https://www.empirecenter.org/publications/senate-set-to-ok-union-trap-law/
A bill designed to make it harder for New York government workers to extricate themselves from labor union membership rolls is poised to move out of a key Senate committee next week. (reported before Cuomo signed)
The obvious answer is the U.S. Supreme Court case Janus v. AFSCME, which could effectively strike down, on First Amendment grounds, all state laws compelling government workers to pay a dues-like fee as a condition of employment. The case, in which the lead plaintiff is Illinois state government employee Mark Janus, will be argued in February and decided by the end of the current court term in June.
Odds seem to be in favor of Janus based on a case raising the same issues, Friedrichs v. California Teachers’ Association, which was argued in early 2016 but resulted in a 4-4 deadlock after the sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia, who was expected to vote in favor of the plaintiff.
Required to pay the same sum either way, most government workers now choose to sign up as union members, which allows them to vote in union elections and run for union office, as well as qualify for group discounts on consumer items such as movie tickets. But the value proposition of government union membership will change radically if workers are suddenly able to choose between paying dues and paying nothing at all.
Not sure which way I'm going on this one. I see both sides of this. Thoughts?
