Washington D.C., Jun 29, 2018 / 03:01 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- A US Supreme Court decision striking down mandatory fees paid to public-sector unions undermines workers’ collective rights and can’t be squared with Catholic teaching, including Benedict XVI’s encyclicals, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops has said.
“It is disappointing that today’s Supreme Court ruling renders the long-held view of so many bishops constitutionally out-of-bounds, and threatens to ‘limit the freedom or negotiating capacity of labor unions’,” Bishop Frank Dewane of Venice, chair of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, said June 27.
Bishop Dewane drew on the 25th paragraph of Benedict’s 2009 encyclical on integral human development in charity and truth, Caritas in veritate, to object to limits on labor unions’ freedom.
“By reading the First Amendment to invalidate agency fee provisions in public-sector collective bargaining agreements, the Court has determined – nationwide, and almost irrevocably – that all government work places shall be ‘right-to-work’,” said the bishop.
The outlawing of these agency fee agreements means that state and federal legislatures should explore alternative means “for the promotion of workers’ associations that can defend their rights,” Bishop DeWayne said, again citing Caritas in veritate.
However, Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield in Illinois took a different view, saying he finds it “encouraging” that the Supreme Court “upholds the right to be free from coercion in speech.”
<blockquote class=”twitter-tweet” data-lang=”en”><p lang=”en” dir=”ltr”>It is encouraging that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Janus v. AFCSME upholds the right to be free from coercion in speech. No longer will public sector employees be required pay dues to support unions that promote abortion and other political issues with which they disagree.</p>— Bishop Paprocki (@BishopPaprocki) <a href=”https://twitter.com/BishopPaprocki/status/1012363223377563648?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw”>June 28, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src=”https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js” charset=”utf-8″></script>
Commenting in a June 28 post on Twitter, Paprocki, depicting the agency fees as dues, said that “no longer will public sector employees be required pay dues to support unions that promote abortion and other political issues with which they disagree.”
The 5-4 decision in Janus v. AFSCME struck down a 1997 Illinois law that required non-union workers to pay fees for collective bargaining.
The plaintiff in the case, Mark Janus, is an Illinois state employee who sued the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). He contended that mandatory “agency fees” paid to the union for contract negotiations violate his free speech because the union takes actions with which he does not agree, the Washington Post reports.
These fees are not used for political purposes, but his lawyers argue that the unions’ lobbying efforts are political acts.
In a Feb. 26 essay in USA Today, Janus said the union uses his monthly fees “to promote an agenda I don’t support.” He objected to the legislation supported by the union’s lobbying arm and to politicians supported by its political arm.
The court considered the constitutionality of “fair share” or “agency” fees, SCOTUSblog reporter Amy Howe said in a June 27 opinion analysis. The decision overturned the 1977 ruling in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education.
The majority opinion, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, ruled that the mandatory agency fees violate the First Amendment. The fees mean public employees who are not union members pay for “unspecified” lobbying expenses and other services that may benefit them. This purpose is “broad enough to encompass just about anything that the union might choose to do” and if a non-member wanted to challenge a fee it would be a “laborious and difficult task” given that it is hard to distinguish what expenses non-members are required to pay and which they are not.
Alito said that the legal and economic environment has changed, with public spending, including public employee wages, benefits and pensions, showing “mounting costs.” These changes give collective bargaining a political significance that might not have been present when such fees were upheld by the Supreme Court.
Despite burdens on unions, Alito said, there have been “many billions of dollars” taken from non-members and transferred to public sector unions “in violation of the First Amendment.”
Justice Elena Kagan, who authored the main dissent, said previous legal precedent “struck a stable balance between public employees’ First Amendment rights and government entities’ interests in running their workforces as they thought proper.” Over 20 states have statutory schemes based on the precedent, she said, charging that the majority of justices acted “with no real clue of what will happen next – of how its action will alter public-sector labor relations.”
“It does so even though the government services affected – policing, firefighting, teaching, transportation, sanitation (and more) – affect the quality of life of tens of millions of Americans,” Kagan said.
Janus was represented by the Liberty Justice Center and the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
His case also had the support of the Becket Fund, whose own amicus brief argued that allowing government workers to opt-out of mandatory union payments protects their freedom of speech and religious freedom.
The legal group, which focuses on religious liberty concerns, argued that giving power to unions to force employees to support speech with which they disagree was a form of “coercion laundering” in which the law uses non-government organizations to coerce.
In a case summary on its website, Becket said the case could have ramifications for religious colleges and universities under private accrediting agencies that could use delegated government authority to infringe on their religious speech and practices.
The Office of General Counsel of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops filed its own amicus brief in the case. It said that “right-to-work” laws eliminate the clauses that prevent “free riders” who benefit from union contracts without paying for union membership. Eliminating these clauses “dramatically weakens” unions and their bargaining power on workers’ behalf, the brief objected.
The brief cited the Church’s strong commitments to protect both the poor and vulnerable from exploitation, and to protect the right of association from governmental infringement. It invoked the Church’s historic, consistent support for workers’ rights to organize and bargain collectively. The brief cited repeated papal calls since Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical on capital and labor, Rerum novarum, to promote “workers’ associations that can defend their rights.”
The USCCB’s brief advocated that the court leave “constitutional space” for the public policy position supported “for so long by so many bishops and bishop-led institutions” rather than “declare still another such position outside the bounds of what policymakers are permitted to implement by law.”
At the time, Bishop Paprocki objected to some news coverage of the case that depicted the legal brief as a position adopted by the U.S. bishops.
“In fact, no vote was taken on whether to file such a brief,” he said Feb. 13. “While church teaching clearly supports freedom of association and the right to form and join a union, it does not mandate coercing people to join a union or pay dues against their will.”
For Paprocki, the question of whether rights of association and free speech are helped or hurt by mandatory dues is “a matter of prudential judgment on which reasonable people can disagree as to whether the rights of association and free speech are helped or hindered by mandatory union dues.”
A May study from the Illinois Economic Policy Institute predicted that a decision in favor of Janus would mean a loss of over 700,000 members from public-sector unions and a wage decline of several percentage points for public sector employees.
Teachers’ unions could be “permanently crippled” by the decision, the journal Education Next reported, though the decision could provide an impetus for other changes.
A loss in teachers’ unions membership could result in a decline in revenues and ability to affect policy. The National Education Association has planned a 13 percent cut for its two-year budget, totaling about $50 million, with its estimated membership losses of 300,000 people, about 10 percent.
[…]
They’re not likely to decrease given the Catholic Church’s newfound commitment, under Francis, to telling the world we’ve been lying to you for 2000 years.
And Europe fell into a deep sleep for hundreds of years…
And yet, the memory of how the distinguished Church and State and other stuff used to fit together…this, from Cardinal DANIELOU. A quote, a fictive parable, and an epilogue…
QUOTE: “Of course, there is a distinction of powers, and this world is not subject directly to the authority of the Church. But to say that this world is not directly subject to the Church’s authority is not to say that it is not subject to the law of God, of which the magisterium of the Church is the interpreter” (“Prayer as a Political Problem,” 1965).
A FICTIVE PARABLE: And it came to pass that the Church sought to fully engage the laity more, in both the domain of the kitchen, and in the external domain of the world (a very good thing!). And this last-ditch initiative was called synodality. But, the radically secularist world filled the vacuum with its politicized effluvium, and the world fell victim to such as “religious groups that follow an anti-Christian narrative.” And the shadow of minarets stretched across the landscape.
And, just as the overrun Hagia Sophia was adorned with Arabic script in the 15th Century, so too was St. Peter’s Basilica adorned with Pachamama in the 21st Century. And, when it was asked, “what does the magisterium have to say, there was nought else by silence and then the sound of an uncertain trumpet.
And, Alaric smiled, whispering in a German accent something about an der Synodal Weg. Emperor Napoleon, too, who had confided his religious pluralism thusly: “They will say that I am a papist—I am no such thing. I was a Mahomedan in Egypt—I will be a Catholic here, for the good of the people. I do not believe in forms of religion, but in the existence of God” (Walter Scott, “Life of Napoleon: Emperor of the French,” Vol II, 1832).
What once was the cultural event called Europe, and the coherence of Faith & Reason, and even the transitory idiom of nation-states, faded from history. Engulfed by vaporous drugs, massive migrations, the turmoil of identity politics, and obsolesced families— all gone with the wind.
And, the perennial and universal Catholic Church, too, succumbed to the “smoke of Satan.” The center did not hold, and the merciless (!) march of history repeated itself. The syncretic mystery religions of the late Roman Empire cross-dressed into a polyhedral, open-bar, welcoming, amnesiac, and dhimmi sort of thing—now shorn of both the laity and Danielou’s intact and consistent magisterium.
EPILOGUE: But it also came to pass that there was a dispersal of cardinalates far beyond what once had been the West, and as far as Mongolia. Such was the historical irony of the real Holy Spirit. And, it came to pass that there was theological hope as outposts of the Benedict Option encircled the globe—like mustard seeds on the wind.
Anti Christian Hate Crimes and moreover anti Catholic Hate Crimes has been seemingly forever ignored by the media. The hate is not just in the crimes but in the souls of the media and securer intellectual class. The hates crimes are essentially the result drowning of the culture with Christian hate by the secularist in all sectors of society from all forms of the media and educational institutions. This is an issue that is essentially not discussed.
They destroyed a beautiful statue of Our Lady in Fort Myers, Florida and the sacrament of reconciliation room. This is not just in Europe. They were caught and arrested. Put on your armor.
I am appalled, but not surprised that our religious right to live in peace is being subject to violence. Satan is winning in Europe and the world.
Just imagine our viral political scene. Hate is out in the open. I cannot ignore the continuing damage Trump has caused with his MAGA radicals. He has an openly fierce hatred for Nancy Pelosi and many of his supposed “no-Trumper”. He recently showed that hate when he punned “what happened to Paul Pelosi? Did anyone see him lately?” E. Jean Carroll who succeded in his rape case, “she’s a wackjob”. Special council Jack Smith is “deranged”. Former AG Barr is a “fat pig”.
His vitriol often spews with hatred and lying. In particular, I am more concerned about the children who may be exposed and influenced by his hateful diatribe.
God save our precious children, the nation and the world from HATRED.
Yes, and you might want to examine your own heart and address the profound hatred and self-righteousness that resides there, as demonstrated by the words and spirit of your post. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
Dear Athanasius. We were directed by my mom, “no lies and never harbor hate for anyone”. I am a Catholic realist. I don’t HATE Trump. I do take serious issue with his un-Christian diatribe and, “in broad daylight”, his threats to families and his autocratic intent to return to power. Seems that you are defending Trump? We don’t have the bully pulpit. The main reason Trump is left to defy the constitution is our complicit silence.
God bless.
This wasn’t an article about Trump but, in case it eluded you, about anti-catholic hatred.
Furthermore your rant about Trump and your so-called “MAGA radicals” effectively does as much to spread hatred as your flimsy characterization of Trump and his supporters.
But I must commend you for your hitting all the leftist talking-points. Before you know it, you’ll be ready to take your place among the “news” readers in major media.
Dear Deacon. Please read my response to Athanasius. Hope this helps.
Thank you.
Ice cream Nancy? ok then
It does seem from your posts that your hatred of Trump is loud and clear. And again seems to rely on the old standby of the uninformed, regarding ” mean tweets”, as if tHAT is the most dangerous thing we have to face in the world. It’s not. Trump is often correct, if a bit too blunt , about the assessment of his enemies. And why tip-toe around someone who is trashing you anyway? I ask what is more dangerous? A man who calls someone a fat pig, or a president who allows dangerous drug dealers, sex traffickers and terrorists into the country to kill and injure his citizens with a shrug and then blames the other side for not rubber stamping their “plan” to let anyone in the world to enter the country that wants to ? An influx of christian hating muslims is why the number of church vandalisms are rising all over Europe.
Who is more dangerous? Who protected the country better? Trump, who raised all boats with his economic policy and made us energy independent? Or biden with massive inflation, and depleted oil reserves, and a military so woke it cannot meet enlistment numbers?. A PRESIDENT whose presidency is undermined for four years with made up and phony charges, or one whose foreign policy is so inept and reckless that enemy shark nations are circling the water around us? After the debacle in Afghanistan, Bidens only reaction in the middle east to more than 50 attacks on US bases by Iran is THREE bombings of warehouses. When we eventually sustain massive casualties of our troops, it will be because Biden refuses to use American power to keep our enemies at bay. Using it AFTER they are dead will not be helpful. One can be CERTAIN Trump would have used the power. To me the funniest thing is someone I know who recently indicated they didnt like Trump because he was “too mean” and didnt think Tim Scott could ever win because he was “too nice”. LOL!! Well, you know, give me the mean guy who will keep me and my family safe, because he is not afraid to do what needs to be done. I am voting for a PRESIDENT, not a saint. Too bad so many democrats swallow propaganda whole, and un-examined. Finally, I refute your coloring Trump supporters as “Maga radicals”. I was born and raised in a blue city in a blue state. Lifelong Catholic who toes the line in every way. Pro-police, pro-law and order.Law abiding, never used drugs. Suburban mom, Daily communicant, in church ministry, holding a post-graduate degree. Trump supporter. Be careful who you imagine to be the “great unwashed” just because they support Trump. Most of the women I call friends are exactly like me.
Have any of the beautiful historic churches that were burned down in Canada even been investigated ?
A Must Read article
https://catholicherald.co.uk/why-does-europe-ignore-the-crimes-committed-against-christianity/
Yet Another good article
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20171/jihad-on-churches-france