Reference no: EM132672346
1. Mark Mix describes this case as a free speech and first amendment protections case. What is government employees compelled to pay to the labor union and what does the labor union do in return?
2. According to mark Mix, what is the core issue?
3. Though this wasn't a RTW case, it was based on two RTW cases that were successfully argued earlier before the Supreme Court. What did the Knox case address? In the 2014 Harris case, who were the unions taking money from to subsidize their activities?
4. What kind of speech is a violation of the First Amendment?
5. Vicki McKenna points out that teachers might not agree with what unions were doing politically in their name and their activities had no connection with the collective bargaining aspects. What does she cite as the problem?
6. Mark Mix explains how the 1977 Supreme Court Abood case did not feel this prompted a major constitutional issue that raises to the strict scrutiny level ( government would have to find a compelling government interest to allow a law to stand, otherwise it would be ruled unconstitutional). At the time, which right was identified as more important than any First Amendment Right?
7. What does the Friedrichs case do?
8. What are they asking the Supreme Court to do now?
9. Why is this not democracy?
10. McKenna states that this will not eliminate unions but allow school teachers to choose who will represent them. How does Mark Mix clarify this perception?
11. Representation is another important issue. What was the original sin in compulsory unionism?
12. What happens if they overturn the Abood case?
13. Unions have the option to be exclusive bargaining representatives whether there is a right to work law in place or not. They use this as their basis for charging fees. There are five cases in the Federal Court that seek to extend the Harris case. What is the main argument as to why exclusive bargaining representation may not be constitutional?
14. There is nothing at the federal level or any level for that matter that says unions can have exclusive bargaining representation. The unions just demand it and use it as their basis for charging fees and forced unionism. What would happen if exclusive bargaining representation is removed?