[20180720]LSB10174_最高法院宣布公共部门工会代理费无效:Janus事件后国会的思考.pdf

上传人:任我行 文档编号:27421 上传时间:2022-06-24 发布时间:2019-04-05 格式:PDF 页数:5 大小:789.29KB
下载 相关 举报
[20180720]LSB10174_最高法院宣布公共部门工会代理费无效:Janus事件后国会的思考.pdf_第1页
第1页 / 共5页
[20180720]LSB10174_最高法院宣布公共部门工会代理费无效:Janus事件后国会的思考.pdf_第2页
第2页 / 共5页
[20180720]LSB10174_最高法院宣布公共部门工会代理费无效:Janus事件后国会的思考.pdf_第3页
第3页 / 共5页
[20180720]LSB10174_最高法院宣布公共部门工会代理费无效:Janus事件后国会的思考.pdf_第4页
第4页 / 共5页
[20180720]LSB10174_最高法院宣布公共部门工会代理费无效:Janus事件后国会的思考.pdf_第5页
第5页 / 共5页
亲,该文档总共5页,全部预览完了,如果喜欢就下载吧!
资源描述

1、CRS INSIGHT Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Legal SidebarLegal Sidebari i Supreme Court Invalidates Public-Sector Union Agency Fees: Considerations for Congress in the Wake of Janus July 20, 2018 On June 27, 2018, the Supreme Court held that “agency fee” arrangements between a union

2、and a government employer necessarily violate the First Amendment, overruling its 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. Agency fee arrangements (sometimes called “fair share” provisions) require employees to pay a fee to the union designated to represent their bargaining unit (i.e.,

3、an exclusive union representative) even if the employees are not members of that union. The Abood Court had held that these arrangements are constitutional insofar as the union uses the fees for “collective bargaining activities” and not “ideological activities unrelated to collective bargaining”des

4、cribed in later cases as “chargeable” versus “nonchargeable” expenditures. But this term, in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31 (AFSCME), a five-member majority of the Court reversed course, holding that Abood was “wrongly decided” and that public-sect

展开阅读全文
相关资源
猜你喜欢
相关搜索
资源标签

当前位置:首页 > 法规条令 > CRS 美国国会研究处报告