Column Extra: Read the SCOTUS arguments over payments to unions
01/24/2014 9:14 AM
01/24/2014 9:32 AM
This week’s State Worker column takes a look at Harris v. Quinn, a U.S. Supreme Court case with implications for government employees nationwide.
The heart of the debate: Can the law compel payment to government-employee unions for collective bargaining and other non-political services that benefit all represented employees? Or does everything that those unions do, including contract deals, fall into a zone of “public concern” that shouldn’t be supported by compulsory payments from employees?
Our column quotes from Tuesday’s oral arguments in Washington, D.C. Several readers have asked us to post the transcript, so we’ve embedded it below. For users who can’t view the embed, click here to download the document.
With just 400 to 450 words for our weekly State Worker column, much of what we learn each week never sees print. Column Extras give you some of the notes, the quotes, the documents and the observations that inform what's published.
About This BlogJon Ortiz launched The State Worker blog in 2008 to cover state government from the perspective of California government employees. Every day he filters the news through a single question: "What does this mean for state workers?" Join Ortiz for updates and debate on state pay, benefits, pensions, contracts and jobs. Contact him at firstname.lastname@example.org or 916-321-1043. Twitter: @TheStateWorker.
Join the Discussion
The Sacramento Bee is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.