Obama-0 SCOTUS-12

Supreme Court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby in contraceptive case

            


Tribune staff and wire reports
9:22 a.m. CDT, June 30, 2014

 



The Supreme Court dealt a setback to President Obama's health care law Monday and ruled that Christian business owners with religious objections to certain forms of birth control may refuse to provide their employees with insurance coverage for contraceptives.
In a major 5-4 ruling on religious freedom, the justices decided the religious rights of these company owners trump the rights of female employees to receive the full contraceptive coverage promised by the law.


 
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-supreme-court-birth-control-mandate-20140630,0,7311433.story
 
Supreme Court issues narrow ruling against labor unions
Richard Wolf, USA TODAY 10:12 a.m. EDT June 30, 2014



1403897456000-AP-Its-The-Economy-Ohio.jpg





The Supreme Court decided an important labor union representation case Monday.

(Photo: Tony Dejak, AP)

192 CONNECT 4 TWEET 1 LINKEDIN 18 COMMENTEMAILMORE

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 along ideological lines Monday that home-care workers in Illinois do not have to pay dues to public employees unions.
The opinion by Justice Samuel Alito was a narrow loss for organized labor. It did not overrule the court's "agency shop" precedent applying to all public employee unions.
The challenge to the mandatory union dues, brought by eight home-care workers in Illinois, represented the biggest labor case to come before the court this term -- putting at potential risk the future viability of public employee unions.
For decades, the law has allowed unions to collect dues from all private or public employees they are required to represent. Those who object don't have to contribute to political or lobbying activities, but they must chip in for the unions' efforts in fighting for better wages, benefits and working conditions.
The home-care workers in Harris v. Quinn served individuals with disabilities through the federal-state Medicaid program. They argued they should not have to pay dues for the state's contract with the Service Employees International Union, even though the union is required to represent them and they benefit from its services.
The workers, who were represented in court by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, contended that public employee unions are engaged in lobbying the government, often on issues the workers oppose. That implicates their First Amendment rights because the union speaks for them.
The importance of the case to public employee unions wasn't lost on the justices during oral argument in January. A decision against the union "would radically restructure the way workplaces across this country are run," Justice Elena Kagan said then.
Justice Antonin Scalia had expressed concern that letting public employees bail out would deprive the unions of funds needed to carry out their legally required duties.
Going into Monday, organized labor had been batting .500 at the court this term. The court dismissed a case in December that threatened to strike down labor-management agreements that help unions organize workers in exchange for concessions.
In January, the court unanimously denied 800 Indiana steelworkers compensation for the time it takes to put on and take off protective gear
Follow @richardjwolf on Twitter.

192 CONNECT 4 TWEET 1 LINKEDIN 18 COMMENTEMAILMORE
 
I can't imagine any union people supporting that Indiana law which was nothing but stealing money from people by the government for the unions.
 
These people were not in a union and had no connection to one, it is the same as if they said everyone with the last name starting with S has to pay union dues.
 
Nitpicking about the state is the best you can come up with?...

Maybe you should read the case first before sticking your foot in your mouth, again.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/11-681_j426.pdf

The reality of this situation is that the state considered the home healthcare workers "employees" for one purpose only, and that was so that they'd fall under the SEIU's collective bargaining agreement. Their compensation was set by state law, not a CBA. They didn't receive state benefits, nor were they indemnified by the state for malpractice.

Here's a fifth-grade language version of the background. It's from a different state, but essentially the same end-run that Illinois successfully made.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/12/13/forced-unionization-of-in-home-care-workers-back-on-minnesota-agenda/
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOTERKsX6Ig&list=UU8w-r9ncSLE-VyQMR3nZbrw&feature=share
 
Dog Wonder said:
Context has both you and E grasping at straws.
Click to expand...
Again, you're nitpicking about the state, but ignorant of the facts of the case.

You say it's freeloading. Go read the facts. Go read how the healthcare workers are really independent contractors hired & fired at will by the patient. There is no grievance procedure. Their pay is set by state law, not a CBA. They get no state healthcare or retirement benefit, they get no state liability or indemnity insurance.

They get paid for by Medicare, which is just a pass-thru of Federal funds that is dispensed by the States.

After reading the facts and context of this case, tell us where were they free-loading, Dog.

I know, it will require more than one line. You can handle it, I'm sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top