Three Concepts of Workplace Freedom of Association

Brishen Rogers
{"title":"Three Concepts of Workplace Freedom of Association","authors":"Brishen Rogers","doi":"10.15779/Z38MG3S","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Article identifies three distinct concepts of workplace freedom of association (“FOA”) and traces their influence on labor law doctrine, focusing on the law of union security devices — contractual clauses that require workers, on pain of termination, to remit fees to unions. The “social democratic” concept informed the passage of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or “the Act”) and continues to inform social movement practice and some other countries’ jurisprudence. It views workplace freedom of association as a means to the end of ensuring economic equality and economic democracy, and generally endorses the so-called “union shop,” under which workers must contribute both to unions’ representational activities and to their legislative and organizing efforts. The “civil libertarian” concept was predominant in Supreme Court doctrine from the Warren Court era until recently. It emphasized individual rights of expression and political participation, and backstopped the line of cases declaring the union shop unlawful but requiring workers to help defray representational expenses. The “neoliberal” concept now appears ascendant. It views market behavior as a form of expressive behavior, and views compulsory payment of any union fees as unconstitutional. Disaggregating these concepts can enrich debates around workplace freedom of association in three ways. First, doing so illustrates that determining the scope of workplace freedom of association involves contestable value judgments about the goods and ends of unionization and association. Second, doing so illustrates that the Supreme Court’s recent union security cases reflect broader trends in the Court’s recent case law that constitutionalize a neoliberal political economy. Third, doing so suggests that the social democratic concept is both more coherent and more morally compelling than the civil libertarian concept, and may help it regain a foothold in debates around workplace freedom of association.","PeriodicalId":142986,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Private Law eJournal","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Society: Private Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38MG3S","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

This Article identifies three distinct concepts of workplace freedom of association (“FOA”) and traces their influence on labor law doctrine, focusing on the law of union security devices — contractual clauses that require workers, on pain of termination, to remit fees to unions. The “social democratic” concept informed the passage of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or “the Act”) and continues to inform social movement practice and some other countries’ jurisprudence. It views workplace freedom of association as a means to the end of ensuring economic equality and economic democracy, and generally endorses the so-called “union shop,” under which workers must contribute both to unions’ representational activities and to their legislative and organizing efforts. The “civil libertarian” concept was predominant in Supreme Court doctrine from the Warren Court era until recently. It emphasized individual rights of expression and political participation, and backstopped the line of cases declaring the union shop unlawful but requiring workers to help defray representational expenses. The “neoliberal” concept now appears ascendant. It views market behavior as a form of expressive behavior, and views compulsory payment of any union fees as unconstitutional. Disaggregating these concepts can enrich debates around workplace freedom of association in three ways. First, doing so illustrates that determining the scope of workplace freedom of association involves contestable value judgments about the goods and ends of unionization and association. Second, doing so illustrates that the Supreme Court’s recent union security cases reflect broader trends in the Court’s recent case law that constitutionalize a neoliberal political economy. Third, doing so suggests that the social democratic concept is both more coherent and more morally compelling than the civil libertarian concept, and may help it regain a foothold in debates around workplace freedom of association.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
工作场所结社自由的三个概念
本文确定了工作场所结社自由(FOA)的三个不同概念,并追溯了它们对劳动法原则的影响,重点是工会保障装置法,即要求工人在被解雇时向工会缴纳费用的合同条款。“社会民主主义”概念为《国家劳工关系法》的通过提供了依据,并继续为社会运动实践和其他一些国家的判例提供依据。它将工作场所的结社自由视为确保经济平等和经济民主的一种手段,并普遍支持所谓的“工会商店”,即工人必须既参与工会的代表活动,又参与工会的立法和组织工作。从沃伦法院时代直到最近,“公民自由主义”概念一直主导着最高法院的原则。它强调个人表达和政治参与的权利,并支持了一系列宣布工会商店非法但要求工人帮助支付代表费用的案件。“新自由主义”的概念现在似乎占上风。它认为市场行为是一种表达行为,并认为强制支付任何工会费用都是违宪的。分解这些概念可以从三个方面丰富围绕工作场所结社自由的辩论。首先,这样做说明,确定工作场所结社自由的范围涉及对工会和结社的利益和目的的可争议的价值判断。其次,这样做说明了最高法院最近的工会安全案件反映了法院最近将新自由主义政治经济宪法化的判例法的更广泛趋势。第三,这样做表明,社会民主主义概念比公民自由主义概念更连贯,在道德上更有说服力,并可能有助于它在围绕工作场所结社自由的辩论中重新站稳脚跟。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Disability, Reasonable Accommodation and the Employer's Obligations: Nano Nagle School V Daly ‘Reasonable Offers’ as a Defence to Unfair Prejudice Petitions: Prescott v Potamianos The Problematic Development of the Stalking Protection Order Equal Civil Partnerships, Discrimination and the Indulgence of Time: R (on the Application of Steinfeld and Keidan) V Secretary of State for International Development Reason‐Giving in Administrative Law: Where are We and Why Have the Courts Not Embraced the ‘General Common Law Duty to Give Reasons’?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1