http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/11/conference-call-justices-to-mull-labor-law-preemption-dispute/ The Supreme Court of the United States blog Tue, 14 Feb 2012 20:42:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/11/conference-call-justices-to-mull-labor-law-preemption-dispute/#comment-13140 Kenneth Fournier Sat, 24 Nov 2007 07:12:03 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/conference-call-justices-to-mull-labor-law-preemption-dispute/#comment-13140 Let me start with, "I'm not a lawyer so please don't flame me". My thoughts on this issue is that the Chamber of Commerce went at this challenge the wrong way. It would appear to me that they should have challenged the law on the basis of the 14th since the unions are not required to follow the same rules as the corporations. What I mean is; The unions attempting to unionize a company is using "dues" collected from union members that derive these funds from California state contracts. It would appear that the Calif statute is unconstitutional because it does not require the union to document that the funds they use to unionize the company are not derived from state contract funds. In essence, the state is taking sides with the unions, which they are maintaining that the statute does not do. In order to maintain a level playing field, the state should not allow the union to use "contract" funds to attempt to unionize a workplace. Instead, the employees should be required to use their own funds to accomplish this goal if that is what they want. Let me start with, “I’m not a lawyer so please don’t flame me”. My thoughts on this issue is that the Chamber of Commerce went at this challenge the wrong way. It would appear to me that they should have challenged the law on the basis of the 14th since the unions are not required to follow the same rules as the corporations. What I mean is; The unions attempting to unionize a company is using “dues” collected from union members that derive these funds from California state contracts. It would appear that the Calif statute is unconstitutional because it does not require the union to document that the funds they use to unionize the company are not derived from state contract funds. In essence, the state is taking sides with the unions, which they are maintaining that the statute does not do. In order to maintain a level playing field, the state should not allow the union to use “contract” funds to attempt to unionize a workplace. Instead, the employees should be required to use their own funds to accomplish this goal if that is what they want.

]]>