Legal News

Justices question California union law

By Jason Siegel

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday on whether a state can block employers from using public money to influence employees views on unions, the Associated Press reported.

It all started with a law passed by California in 2000 blocking state funds from going to employers, arguing that the state takes a neutral position in labor disputes by not subsidizing employers' activities for and against unions.

Nine states have passed similar laws since then.

The Bush administration and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are among those challenging California's law. Health-care companies are especially affected as they work with the states and rely heavily on income from state Medicaid payments, American Public Media's "Marketplace" reports (LISTEN).

They argue that the law simply favors unions and is specifically blocking anti-union speech. That argument resonated with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia, who said "the reason [California's] not paying for this activity is because you don't like this activity," the Associate Press reported.

AFL-CIO attorney Scott Kronland told "Marketplace" that employers speech isn't affected, they just can't use state money to influence employees decisions. This argument was reiterated by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, who said "Go ahead, speak, speak, just not on our nickel," the Associated Press reported.

The law was first challenged in 2002 and won in federal court and later in a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. But a full 9th Circuit overturned the decision, finding that state's law was not pre-empted by the National Labor Relations Act. A Supreme Court ruling is expected in late June.

Full post as published by Legal Pad | LA on March 20, 2008 (boomark / email).