Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grasso, Michael Best,
Speaker 1: and Greg Store. In its last term, the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: looked ready to deliver a major blow to public sector unions.
Speaker 1: The issue is whether workers have a First Amendment right
Speaker 1: not to contribute financially to the union that represents them
Speaker 1: in collective bargaining. By all appearances, the Court's conservative wing
Speaker 1: was poised to rule that workers did did not have
Speaker 1: to pay what are known as agency fees, and along
Speaker 1: the way, the Court would overturn a forty year old
Speaker 1: president known as a Bood versus Detroit Board of Education.
Speaker 1: Then Justice Anton Scalia died and deprived Conservatives of the
Speaker 1: fifth vote they needed. The Court deadlocked four to four,
Speaker 1: and with the prospect that Scalia's successor might be a
Speaker 1: Democratic appointee, the issue looked like it might go away.
Speaker 1: But then Donald Trump won the election and with it
Speaker 1: the opportunity to appoint a Conservative to fill the Scalia seat.
Speaker 1: That raises the prospect and perhaps the likelihood, that mandatory
Speaker 1: agency fees are again in peril, at least in the
Speaker 1: public sector. With us to talk about the issues the
Speaker 1: issue once against all Secunda, a law professor at Marquette
Speaker 1: University and now Kevin McGowan, Senior legal editor at Bloomberg
Speaker 1: b NA. Paul, is it inevitable that the court will
Speaker 1: take up this issue and overrule the about precedent. I
Speaker 1: think it is likely to happen, unfortunately eventually, but it's
Speaker 1: not going to happen quickly. The Democrats are still very
Speaker 1: upset about being not being able to appoint a justice
Speaker 1: to to replace Justice Clear for nine months, and I
Speaker 1: would think that there's gonna be tremendous pushback if the
Speaker 1: nominee from the Republicans is extremely conservative. Um Eventually, of
Speaker 1: course it's a four year term, so they're going to
Speaker 1: broker some kind of deal. Will just be very interesting
Speaker 1: what kind of appointment is eventually made and whether that
Speaker 1: person has strong feelings concerning the public's sector union mandatory
Speaker 1: fee issue. But there are other cases that are currently
Speaker 1: in the system that could raise the same issue that
Speaker 1: Freedricks rose uh this year. And of course if there's
Speaker 1: five Conservatives and and four Progressives, that could spell trouble
Speaker 1: for public sector union mandatory dues. Kevin, this is my
Speaker 1: best the The President elect has put out a list
Speaker 1: of judges that he says he will use to appoint
Speaker 1: uh somebody to the Supreme Court he campaigned on it.
Speaker 1: Do we know if everybody on that list is going
Speaker 1: to be against a boot and wanting to overturn it. Uh? No,
Speaker 1: we probably don't know specifically, But I think it's probably
Speaker 1: a pretty fair guest that any judge that a President
Speaker 1: Trump does nominate is going to be sympathetic to the
Speaker 1: arguments raised by the employees who aren't members of the union.
Speaker 1: Their their argument, how along, has been they have a
Speaker 1: first memory right not to associate with the union and
Speaker 1: not to be forced to pay dues to union with
Speaker 1: whom they disagree on many issues the court in the
Speaker 1: past it's conservative branch as rule that you know, money
Speaker 1: is speech. So there's a there's already sympathetic um, certainly
Speaker 1: sympathy umo the flour conservative justices in the Court, and
Speaker 1: probably sympathy from any judge that Trump would elect that
Speaker 1: people shouldn't be compelled to support speech with which they disagree. Well,
Speaker 1: what are some of the other issues that may come
Speaker 1: up or before the Supreme Court involving unions. Well, some
Speaker 1: of the other issues could be the class action waivers
Speaker 1: h with regard to arbitration agreements. The National Labor Relations
Speaker 1: Board has said that having class action waivers and arbitration
Speaker 1: agreements and employment is inconsistent with rights that employees have
Speaker 1: under Section seven of the National Labor Relations Acting, particularly
Speaker 1: to work together concertedly to improve the conditions in their workplace.
Speaker 1: A number of circuit courts UH federal appellate courts have
Speaker 1: disagreed and said that the Federal Arbitration Act takes precedent
Speaker 1: and that you're allowed to have class action waivers. There's
Speaker 1: actually a couple of petitions for searciari right now on
Speaker 1: that issue, and if there is a fifth Conservative Justice,
Speaker 1: I wouldn't be surprised to see them take that case
Speaker 1: and rule in favor of allob and class action waivers.
Speaker 1: That is certainly one of the big ones. The other
Speaker 1: big issue could be the joint employer doctrine issue, the
Speaker 1: one that allows UH employees not just to sue their
Speaker 1: franchise e owner, but the franchise or like in the
Speaker 1: McDonald's situation. UH, there could be an interpretation of the
Speaker 1: law that makes the broader definition recently adopted by the
Speaker 1: National Labor Relations Boards somewhat in jeopardy. We are going
Speaker 1: to have to leave it there. Thank you to our
Speaker 1: guest Bloomberg B and a senior legal editor, Kevin McGowan,
Speaker 1: and Paul Secunda, a law professor at Marquette University, talking
Speaker 1: about the impact the Supreme Court might have on labor
Speaker 1: law and labor unions. Still still to come here on
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law. Some new developments in the big legal fight
Speaker 1: over breakfast brexit Brexit excuse me, and we'll talk about
Speaker 1: the possibility of protesters at the Trump inaugural parade and
Speaker 1: where those people can stand. That's all coming up on
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law. This is Bloomberg. Yeah,