Supreme Court to Rule on Union Law

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

Supreme Court to Rule on Union Law

Tuesday November 20, 2007 7:01 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court intervened in
a dispute between organized labor and management
Tuesday, agreeing to decide the validity of a state law
that limits employers' ability to weigh in on union
organizing.

The case accepted by the justices comes from California,
where a law passed in 2000 prohibits employers from using
money they receive from the state to oppose or support
unionization efforts.

The law, passed by the Democratic-led state legislature
and signed by then-Democratic Gov. Gray Davis, was
upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals over the
objection of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other
business interests. Those groups argued that federal
labor law guarantees the free speech rights of employers
and trumps state regulations in this area.

-snip-

The Bush administration backed the business groups in
calling for the court to take the case.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7091520,00.html

[Joanne98]

1. GOD DAMM IT!

[Maccagirl]

2. Taking bets now on what the Supremes will do with this

Taxpaying Americans simply have no voice anymore. What kind of country do we ask our troops to defend-and die for?

[ladywnch]

3. Gee, I wonder how they'll rule?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Trillo]

4. Another "money as speech" ruling ?

If the money used was California's money given to the biz, i.e., "law passed in 2000 prohibits employers from using money they receive from the state", then why is the United States Supreme Court involved?

If I give a merchant $1.00 for a couple of oranges, shouldn't I receive my oranges instead of a pack of smokes?

[DumpDavisHogg]

5. Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth

Big Business gets corporate welfare, and then they get mad because they can't use it against the unions?

That's the taxpayers' money, not Big Business's.

[badgervan]

6. Typical rethug Position

For state's rights - except when they're against state's rights. Talk about "situationally ethical"; these guys have always, and I do mean always, looked out for NR. ONE, and screw the rest of us.

[Robbien]

7. The employer has a right to speech, but not the right to use public funds

to amplify the effects of his free speech.

If the employer uses public funds to exercise his free speech rights, then the same amount of public funds should be given to the opposition for their free speech rights.

[Bandit]

8. The Bush administration backed the business groups

Over the Laborer..Imagine that.........

[hvn_nbr_2]

9. States' rights? Only applies for state-sponsored racism

If the money at issue comes from the state (prohibits employers from using
money they receive from the state to...), it's hard to imagine that they could rule that the state can't determine what's done with the money. However, with a roomful of wingnuts controlling the Supreme Court, what's hard to imagine is the norm.