

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Workers across the United States are bracing for a major Supreme Court case, set for argument on Monday, that could strike a devastating blow to public sector unions nationwide.
Backed by right-wing anti-union groups including the Center for Individual Rights, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association seeks to overturn the legal framework under which public sector unions require workers who benefit from their representation--from higher wages to improved conditions--to pay their fair share.
In other words, the case could result in the enforcement of so-called "Right to Work" (RTW) laws--dubbed by critics as "Right to Work for Less"--on all public labor unions in the United States.
The current case is one of many attempts to undo Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) and follows the passage of RTW laws in 25 states.
The case has huge implications for public unions. According to the editorial board of The Nation, the reversal of Abood would "trigger an earthquake in American labor relations."
"The legal foundations of thousands of public-sector bargaining agreements, covering millions of workers providing all manner of public services, will disappear," the editorial continues. "The whole of American public employment, at all levels of government, will become a 'right to work' (i.e., right not to pay for service) killing field for unions."
Unions are planning to mobilize to the steps of the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. next week to warn that the case poses a significant threat, not only to union members, but to society at large.
States with RTW laws have more severe poverty, higher infant mortality rates, and greater workplace fatalities, according to studies. In fact, the Economic Policy Institute concluded in April that full-time workers in RTW states make, on average, $1,558 less a year in earnings.
What's more, union members note, strong unions for public employees protect the people those workers serve.
"As nurses our ability to have a collective voice for our patients is critical," Martese Chism, a public hospital nurse in Chicago, said in a statement released Friday by National Nurses United. "Without the support of our union, nurses have little protection to speak out and challenge unsafe staffing or other eroding patient care conditions that happen all too often in our hospitals."
Whatever happens with the the case, rights campaigners urge that now is the time to be vigilant. As Labor Notes writer Samantha Winslow argued last summer, "organizing is the key to surviving Friedrichs."
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Workers across the United States are bracing for a major Supreme Court case, set for argument on Monday, that could strike a devastating blow to public sector unions nationwide.
Backed by right-wing anti-union groups including the Center for Individual Rights, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association seeks to overturn the legal framework under which public sector unions require workers who benefit from their representation--from higher wages to improved conditions--to pay their fair share.
In other words, the case could result in the enforcement of so-called "Right to Work" (RTW) laws--dubbed by critics as "Right to Work for Less"--on all public labor unions in the United States.
The current case is one of many attempts to undo Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) and follows the passage of RTW laws in 25 states.
The case has huge implications for public unions. According to the editorial board of The Nation, the reversal of Abood would "trigger an earthquake in American labor relations."
"The legal foundations of thousands of public-sector bargaining agreements, covering millions of workers providing all manner of public services, will disappear," the editorial continues. "The whole of American public employment, at all levels of government, will become a 'right to work' (i.e., right not to pay for service) killing field for unions."
Unions are planning to mobilize to the steps of the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. next week to warn that the case poses a significant threat, not only to union members, but to society at large.
States with RTW laws have more severe poverty, higher infant mortality rates, and greater workplace fatalities, according to studies. In fact, the Economic Policy Institute concluded in April that full-time workers in RTW states make, on average, $1,558 less a year in earnings.
What's more, union members note, strong unions for public employees protect the people those workers serve.
"As nurses our ability to have a collective voice for our patients is critical," Martese Chism, a public hospital nurse in Chicago, said in a statement released Friday by National Nurses United. "Without the support of our union, nurses have little protection to speak out and challenge unsafe staffing or other eroding patient care conditions that happen all too often in our hospitals."
Whatever happens with the the case, rights campaigners urge that now is the time to be vigilant. As Labor Notes writer Samantha Winslow argued last summer, "organizing is the key to surviving Friedrichs."
Workers across the United States are bracing for a major Supreme Court case, set for argument on Monday, that could strike a devastating blow to public sector unions nationwide.
Backed by right-wing anti-union groups including the Center for Individual Rights, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association seeks to overturn the legal framework under which public sector unions require workers who benefit from their representation--from higher wages to improved conditions--to pay their fair share.
In other words, the case could result in the enforcement of so-called "Right to Work" (RTW) laws--dubbed by critics as "Right to Work for Less"--on all public labor unions in the United States.
The current case is one of many attempts to undo Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) and follows the passage of RTW laws in 25 states.
The case has huge implications for public unions. According to the editorial board of The Nation, the reversal of Abood would "trigger an earthquake in American labor relations."
"The legal foundations of thousands of public-sector bargaining agreements, covering millions of workers providing all manner of public services, will disappear," the editorial continues. "The whole of American public employment, at all levels of government, will become a 'right to work' (i.e., right not to pay for service) killing field for unions."
Unions are planning to mobilize to the steps of the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. next week to warn that the case poses a significant threat, not only to union members, but to society at large.
States with RTW laws have more severe poverty, higher infant mortality rates, and greater workplace fatalities, according to studies. In fact, the Economic Policy Institute concluded in April that full-time workers in RTW states make, on average, $1,558 less a year in earnings.
What's more, union members note, strong unions for public employees protect the people those workers serve.
"As nurses our ability to have a collective voice for our patients is critical," Martese Chism, a public hospital nurse in Chicago, said in a statement released Friday by National Nurses United. "Without the support of our union, nurses have little protection to speak out and challenge unsafe staffing or other eroding patient care conditions that happen all too often in our hospitals."
Whatever happens with the the case, rights campaigners urge that now is the time to be vigilant. As Labor Notes writer Samantha Winslow argued last summer, "organizing is the key to surviving Friedrichs."