Welcome to the Liberty Insider.
00:00:28.32\00:00:30.33
This is the program
that brings you news,
00:00:30.36\00:00:32.29
views, discussion,
up-to-date information
00:00:32.33\00:00:34.53
and analysis of
religious liberty events
00:00:34.56\00:00:37.57
in the US and around the world.
00:00:37.60\00:00:39.40
My name is Lincoln Steed,
Editor of Liberty Magazine,
00:00:39.43\00:00:43.20
and my guest on the
program is Bruce Cameron,
00:00:43.24\00:00:46.47
Law Professor at
Regent University.
00:00:46.51\00:00:49.24
And, Bruce,
00:00:49.28\00:00:50.61
this is a return
engagement for you.
00:00:50.65\00:00:54.55
Few years ago, I think it was,
00:00:54.58\00:00:55.95
I know you were on this program?
00:00:55.98\00:00:57.32
That's right.
00:00:57.35\00:00:58.69
It was great then,
00:00:58.72\00:01:00.06
and it's great to
be with you in today.
00:01:00.09\00:01:01.42
And the world has changed,
00:01:01.46\00:01:02.89
but some of the same
concerns that you specialize,
00:01:02.92\00:01:05.43
you know with us very much.
00:01:05.46\00:01:07.03
And I need to give our
viewers a little heads up
00:01:07.06\00:01:10.70
that your
specialty is the union,
00:01:10.73\00:01:15.07
since some of the
legal complications
00:01:15.10\00:01:17.11
that come with
this whole union issue.
00:01:17.14\00:01:19.71
And for Seventh-day Adventist
00:01:19.74\00:01:21.78
this resonates deeply
00:01:21.81\00:01:23.14
because Ellen White writing
to the early Adventist Church
00:01:23.18\00:01:26.21
had many, often
very strong comments
00:01:26.25\00:01:29.25
to say about the inadvisability
of union membership.
00:01:29.28\00:01:32.62
Right? Right.
00:01:32.65\00:01:33.99
And their impact
on religious liberty.
00:01:34.02\00:01:36.62
And events at
the very end of time.
00:01:36.66\00:01:39.16
That is right.
00:01:39.19\00:01:40.80
As you know the
church has a teaching
00:01:40.83\00:01:43.30
that suggest that church members
00:01:43.33\00:01:45.87
should not be
members of labor unions.
00:01:45.90\00:01:47.24
Right.
00:01:47.27\00:01:48.60
So it's an important
earliest recommendation.
00:01:48.64\00:01:49.97
It's a recommendation
00:01:50.01\00:01:51.34
that members
probably best not to join.
00:01:51.37\00:01:54.34
Now, there's a lot of
talk about the Supreme Court.
00:01:54.38\00:01:57.45
Now you're a
lawyer, and you know
00:01:57.48\00:01:58.95
that's the highest point.
00:01:58.98\00:02:03.52
Everything sort of devolves
00:02:03.55\00:02:05.42
finally to what the
court thinks on a topic.
00:02:05.45\00:02:08.52
Final word, it is.
00:02:08.56\00:02:09.96
What is one of
their recent decisions
00:02:09.99\00:02:13.80
that has a deep impact
on the union situation?
00:02:13.83\00:02:17.20
Well, there have been a
couple of decisions recently.
00:02:17.23\00:02:20.40
We'll probably
take one in one show.
00:02:20.44\00:02:22.34
They are wonderful when
it comes to labor unions
00:02:22.37\00:02:26.41
and religious liberty
and freedom of speech.
00:02:26.44\00:02:30.55
Both of these
decisions were funded
00:02:30.58\00:02:33.05
by the National Right to
Work Legal Defense Foundation.
00:02:33.08\00:02:35.95
They paid the bill
for the litigation.
00:02:35.98\00:02:38.35
The first one was a case called
00:02:38.39\00:02:40.36
Knox versus Service Employees
International Union 1000.
00:02:40.39\00:02:44.59
A case that had to do with,
00:02:44.63\00:02:46.46
I won't get into
the detail so much,
00:02:46.49\00:02:48.63
but it was an issue
about what unions have to do
00:02:48.66\00:02:53.37
before they can
collect compulsory fees
00:02:53.40\00:02:56.00
from non-members.
00:02:56.04\00:02:57.84
But what came
out of that opinion,
00:02:57.87\00:02:59.94
that's so important is that
00:02:59.97\00:03:01.84
the United State Supreme
Court for the very first time
00:03:01.88\00:03:06.61
said that the right
not to support the union,
00:03:06.65\00:03:12.02
the right to stand
apart from a labor union
00:03:12.05\00:03:15.19
is a protected first amendment
00:03:15.22\00:03:17.33
protected by the highest
standards of the constitution.
00:03:17.36\00:03:21.56
Now the highest
standard of the constitution
00:03:21.60\00:03:23.30
that has is a compelling
state interest that is,
00:03:23.33\00:03:26.27
if you have
first amendment right,
00:03:26.30\00:03:28.07
Lincoln, and the government
wants to take it away from you,
00:03:28.10\00:03:31.71
if it's a right protected
00:03:31.74\00:03:33.17
by the
compelling state interest,
00:03:33.21\00:03:34.94
the government has to
show a compelling interest
00:03:34.98\00:03:37.91
in taking your right away.
00:03:37.95\00:03:39.41
Theoretically a
very high bar, isn't it?
00:03:39.45\00:03:41.08
Very high bar.
00:03:41.12\00:03:42.45
Most statutes that are
subjected to the compelling
00:03:42.48\00:03:46.49
state interest
standard do not survive.
00:03:46.52\00:03:49.59
And so the Supreme Court said,
00:03:49.62\00:03:52.16
compelling state
interest must be shown,
00:03:52.19\00:03:54.46
whenever someone's write
00:03:54.50\00:03:56.23
to stand apart from the
labor union is interfered.
00:03:56.26\00:04:00.30
You know I can't resist,
00:04:00.34\00:04:01.74
throw again two
comments on this.
00:04:01.77\00:04:05.14
This whole organizations
that get their funding by
00:04:05.17\00:04:08.21
revving up their members about
00:04:08.24\00:04:10.01
the wickedness
of the Supreme Court
00:04:10.05\00:04:11.81
and its bad directions
and its partisan nature
00:04:11.85\00:04:17.55
and yet it's a very
good decision on this topic.
00:04:17.59\00:04:20.32
That's right,
that's right 2012...
00:04:20.36\00:04:21.92
And then the
other thing and I think,
00:04:21.96\00:04:23.29
in spite of the fact
this is no state secret
00:04:23.32\00:04:26.70
that the present
administration are very
00:04:26.73\00:04:28.70
favorable toward union,
00:04:28.73\00:04:31.87
you know I'm speaking
about that before the election.
00:04:31.90\00:04:33.30
Yes.
00:04:33.34\00:04:34.67
The Obama administration
have been very private union.
00:04:34.70\00:04:36.50
Right.
00:04:36.54\00:04:37.87
But you would have thought that,
00:04:37.91\00:04:39.24
they would have been
at least tilting publicly
00:04:39.27\00:04:42.98
and maybe he
presses the wrong word.
00:04:43.01\00:04:45.38
Oh, they are tilting.
00:04:45.41\00:04:46.92
Who is that, I
mean, what's going on
00:04:46.95\00:04:48.52
with the National
Labor Relations Board,
00:04:48.55\00:04:50.62
which is what is very
important to employees,
00:04:50.65\00:04:54.69
most private sector employees
has been very negative,
00:04:54.72\00:04:58.99
that is the Obama administration
00:04:59.03\00:05:02.40
and his appointees at the
National Labor Relations Board
00:05:02.43\00:05:06.30
are pushing quickie
elections son employees...
00:05:06.33\00:05:08.97
Now you opened up on this...
00:05:09.00\00:05:10.67
Right.
00:05:10.71\00:05:12.04
I mean, so employees
don't hear both sides,
00:05:12.07\00:05:16.98
they were trying
to push card check
00:05:17.01\00:05:19.61
where employees don't have
the right to secret ballot,
00:05:19.65\00:05:23.12
there have been
all sorts of things
00:05:23.15\00:05:24.75
and in fact the
courts have had drain
00:05:24.79\00:05:26.76
the Obama administration in,
00:05:26.79\00:05:28.92
because it was making
appointments that were illegal.
00:05:28.96\00:05:33.90
It was making
recess appointments
00:05:33.93\00:05:35.93
when Congress was
not really in recess.
00:05:35.96\00:05:39.13
So that was the
Supreme Court decision.
00:05:39.17\00:05:40.50
Oh, but that was
not really in recess.
00:05:40.54\00:05:41.87
Not, not
according to Supreme Court.
00:05:41.90\00:05:43.54
I know about recess appointments
00:05:43.57\00:05:45.44
and you know that's
I got to think that,
00:05:45.47\00:05:48.34
is that's it's not so much
specified in the constitution,
00:05:48.38\00:05:51.95
but it fits within the
constitutional norm, right.
00:05:51.98\00:05:54.72
Well, when the US Supreme
Court looked at this issue,
00:05:54.75\00:05:58.69
about whether or not there were
00:05:58.72\00:06:00.32
members of the
National Labor Relations Board,
00:06:00.36\00:06:02.36
they'd been
properly recess appointed
00:06:02.39\00:06:04.56
whether or not
the general counsel
00:06:04.59\00:06:06.76
of the National
Labor Relations Board
00:06:06.80\00:06:08.20
had been
properly recess appointed.
00:06:08.23\00:06:10.30
They went through
00:06:10.33\00:06:11.67
the
constitutional legal background
00:06:11.70\00:06:13.64
and said, what President
Obama had done was illegal,
00:06:13.67\00:06:18.07
which meant that large number
of cases had to be re-decided.
00:06:18.11\00:06:23.65
Yeah, yeah.
00:06:23.68\00:06:25.01
So yes, there has been a push,
00:06:25.05\00:06:26.51
but there's also a push back...
00:06:26.55\00:06:27.88
So that's good.
00:06:27.92\00:06:29.25
In this case the Supreme
Court have acted judiciously.
00:06:29.28\00:06:34.16
They acted judiciously.
00:06:34.19\00:06:35.59
We were involved in
that litigation anyway.
00:06:35.62\00:06:36.96
Now this was before
Justice Scalia died.
00:06:36.99\00:06:39.53
Yes.
00:06:39.56\00:06:40.90
So he was part of that decision.
00:06:40.93\00:06:42.30
Yes, he was part
of that decision.
00:06:42.33\00:06:45.33
That's correct.
00:06:45.37\00:06:46.70
So tell us a little
bit more about this case
00:06:46.74\00:06:50.31
and how it came to
battle or what you see,
00:06:50.34\00:06:54.04
we'll follow from this.
00:06:54.08\00:06:55.41
Good things, I'm
sure. Yeah, good things.
00:06:55.44\00:06:57.05
While the Knox case was
a set up for another case,
00:06:57.08\00:07:01.15
we had before the
United States Supreme Court.
00:07:01.18\00:07:03.39
Two years later
called Harris v. Quinn.
00:07:03.42\00:07:06.82
Now, let me give
you a background,
00:07:06.86\00:07:08.19
because I think your viewers
will be interested in it.
00:07:08.22\00:07:12.99
When I was growing up...
00:07:13.03\00:07:14.53
It depends on
papers, this is low lecture
00:07:14.56\00:07:17.63
of what doesn't
speaks, this is good.
00:07:17.67\00:07:20.87
I hope our viewers
really watching regularly,
00:07:20.90\00:07:23.44
I mean it's a mix bag but
we have a lot of legal expense
00:07:23.47\00:07:27.58
and a number of law professors,
00:07:27.61\00:07:29.08
and I think it's a privilege
00:07:29.11\00:07:30.45
for all of us be talking to you,
00:07:30.48\00:07:32.31
just try to get these tutorials.
00:07:32.35\00:07:34.05
Well, it's a privilege
for me to be talking to you.
00:07:34.08\00:07:36.89
But this is more of a story.
00:07:36.92\00:07:38.79
When I was growing up,
if you were old and poor,
00:07:38.82\00:07:42.76
the government would support you
00:07:42.79\00:07:44.33
by putting you in a
warehouse for old people
00:07:44.36\00:07:48.00
and it was really
kind of a sad situation,
00:07:48.03\00:07:50.13
where all these
oldsters warehoused together.
00:07:50.17\00:07:53.27
But somebody came
up with his great idea
00:07:53.30\00:07:57.41
that instead of paying
00:07:57.44\00:07:58.81
to warehouse, old poor people,
00:07:58.84\00:08:01.18
why not pay their
children to take care of them,
00:08:01.21\00:08:04.55
or friend to take care of them,
00:08:04.58\00:08:06.55
or some other
acquaintance or relative.
00:08:06.58\00:08:11.05
And so, what happened
was a number of states
00:08:11.09\00:08:14.16
went to this model,
00:08:14.19\00:08:15.59
where if you are
the poor oldster,
00:08:15.62\00:08:18.89
you could select the person
who would be your caregiver.
00:08:18.93\00:08:22.73
And the government
would pay your caregiver.
00:08:22.76\00:08:26.13
I hate to be
writing on, not your parade,
00:08:26.17\00:08:29.90
but the US parade,
00:08:29.94\00:08:31.44
this is quite common in
other western countries.
00:08:31.47\00:08:33.74
Oh, well, maybe we got
it from some place else.
00:08:33.78\00:08:37.98
But where we
thought it to begin with.
00:08:38.01\00:08:39.61
But it's a very good idea.
00:08:39.65\00:08:40.98
Oh, it's a great idea.
00:08:41.02\00:08:42.48
Because instead of these
institutions, impersonal,
00:08:42.52\00:08:46.19
you have someone
who cares about you
00:08:46.22\00:08:47.99
and as the oldster getting help,
00:08:48.02\00:08:50.19
you could hire and fire
the person who is helping you.
00:08:50.23\00:08:53.40
Well, organized labor
has long been losing members,
00:08:53.43\00:08:58.47
they're on a
hunt to find members
00:08:58.50\00:09:00.20
wherever they can.
00:09:00.24\00:09:01.87
And so in where I
would call liberal states
00:09:01.90\00:09:05.51
that had this kind of situation,
00:09:05.54\00:09:07.84
the unions went to their
friends in their legislature
00:09:07.88\00:09:11.45
and said, here's that
we'd like to have you a do.
00:09:11.48\00:09:14.48
We would like
to have you declare
00:09:14.52\00:09:16.75
that the caregiver is
an employee of the state.
00:09:16.79\00:09:21.46
But in some ways it's
really pulling the cloak off
00:09:21.49\00:09:25.93
the whole church at the state
aid discussion that we have.
00:09:25.96\00:09:31.07
I know this is not analogy,
this is what's happening.
00:09:31.10\00:09:33.84
But we've always said
00:09:33.87\00:09:35.24
in the religious
liberty department
00:09:35.27\00:09:36.87
that when a school in
particular takes state many,
00:09:36.91\00:09:41.41
there is a sense of
control and this proves it.
00:09:41.44\00:09:43.68
Well.
00:09:43.71\00:09:45.25
It's directly as money
given to a family member
00:09:45.28\00:09:48.32
to be a caregiver and they
could be regarded in someway
00:09:48.35\00:09:51.45
as an employee.
00:09:51.49\00:09:52.92
But the end of story is
not gonna help you, Lincoln.
00:09:52.95\00:09:54.46
No.
00:09:54.49\00:09:55.82
And as you know,
00:09:55.86\00:09:57.19
you and I
disagree on this point.
00:09:57.23\00:09:59.26
But so what happened
was the state declared
00:09:59.29\00:10:02.70
these caregivers employees,
00:10:02.73\00:10:06.20
essentially for the
purpose of paying union dues.
00:10:06.23\00:10:09.57
And the result was
that millions of dollars
00:10:09.60\00:10:12.57
were siphoned out
of the welfare system
00:10:12.61\00:10:15.01
into the coffers
of organized labor.
00:10:15.04\00:10:17.61
And there were
Seventh-day Adventist
00:10:17.65\00:10:19.91
for example,
00:10:19.95\00:10:21.28
who are taking
care of their parents,
00:10:21.32\00:10:22.78
Seventh-day Adventist
who had disabled children,
00:10:22.82\00:10:25.32
or taking care
of their children,
00:10:25.35\00:10:27.12
who found that they had
to suddenly pay union dues.
00:10:27.16\00:10:31.23
But in my view
this is state subsidy
00:10:31.26\00:10:33.23
of the union caused itself.
00:10:33.26\00:10:35.43
Absolutely.
00:10:35.46\00:10:36.80
No question about it.
00:10:36.83\00:10:38.27
It's fiddle to
call it union dues.
00:10:38.30\00:10:39.90
Well, it's a fiddle to call them
00:10:39.93\00:10:41.60
employees of the state, right.
00:10:41.64\00:10:43.81
And so we had filed lawsuits
in numerous federal courts
00:10:43.84\00:10:48.64
trying to challenge this scheme,
00:10:48.68\00:10:51.28
because we were trying
to stand up for employees,
00:10:51.31\00:10:55.58
new employees relatives,
00:10:55.62\00:10:56.95
who object is
supporting the union,
00:10:56.99\00:10:59.05
and we thought the
whole scheme was a scam.
00:10:59.09\00:11:03.06
We lost all those cases until
we got the US Supreme Court
00:11:03.09\00:11:07.13
Harris v. Quinn
2014 following upon Knox,
00:11:07.16\00:11:11.53
the Supreme Court
said "Well, we decided,
00:11:11.57\00:11:14.67
that the state has to
show compelling state interest
00:11:14.70\00:11:18.21
to interfere with
first to memorize,
00:11:18.24\00:11:21.24
to reframe from
supporting union,
00:11:21.28\00:11:23.55
there is no
compelling state interest here.
00:11:23.58\00:11:26.21
This is not
collective bargaining
00:11:26.25\00:11:28.62
in a traditional sense.
00:11:28.65\00:11:30.35
This is just forcing
someone to accept the lobbyist
00:11:30.39\00:11:34.69
to represent you.
00:11:34.72\00:11:36.93
Supreme Court said
it's unconstitutional.
00:11:36.96\00:11:40.46
And what was the
break on the decision?
00:11:40.50\00:11:42.70
The decision was 5-4 in favor
of the individual employees.
00:11:42.73\00:11:49.30
And so as a
result, every individual
00:11:49.34\00:11:52.94
in the United
States was a caregiver,
00:11:52.97\00:11:54.88
who did not want
to support labor union
00:11:54.91\00:11:57.28
was freed from
supporting a labor union.
00:11:57.31\00:11:59.45
Every Seventh-day Adventist
00:11:59.48\00:12:00.82
was having a
crisis of conscience
00:12:00.85\00:12:02.82
on this was freed from
having to support the union.
00:12:02.85\00:12:06.22
Were there any
union requirements
00:12:06.25\00:12:09.96
that would have affected
00:12:09.99\00:12:12.29
how they gave care
to their family members?
00:12:12.33\00:12:16.26
Well, see that was one...
00:12:16.30\00:12:17.63
I mean this is
separate issue then,
00:12:17.67\00:12:19.20
they should be
required to give the money.
00:12:19.23\00:12:20.90
Well, that's part of the scam...
00:12:20.94\00:12:22.77
How were they
getting the hook in
00:12:22.80\00:12:24.14
'cause I can't see that
00:12:24.17\00:12:25.51
the union would
have a role in...
00:12:25.54\00:12:28.74
They didn't, this
was the outrage of it
00:12:28.78\00:12:31.15
because the
employer is the poor oldster,
00:12:31.18\00:12:34.38
who is hiring and
firing thecaregiver.
00:12:34.42\00:12:37.45
There would be state
standards about giving care.
00:12:37.49\00:12:41.59
Not union standards.
00:12:41.62\00:12:42.96
Not union standards.
00:12:42.99\00:12:44.33
So union could lobby on it,
00:12:44.36\00:12:45.96
but the bottom-line is
that it really was a fraud
00:12:45.99\00:12:50.90
in the sense that the troupers
00:12:50.93\00:12:53.03
that control the
employment relationship
00:12:53.07\00:12:55.17
was the oldster,
not the government.
00:12:55.20\00:12:58.31
This was simply a scheme
00:12:58.34\00:12:59.84
in order to enrich labor unions.
00:12:59.87\00:13:02.74
And did the majority
opinion identified as this?
00:13:02.78\00:13:08.25
As the scam? Yeah.
00:13:08.28\00:13:09.95
No, they didn't use that term.
00:13:09.98\00:13:12.02
But sometimes
Scalia was inclined to use
00:13:12.05\00:13:14.76
some rather in tempered language
00:13:14.79\00:13:16.59
even in some decisions.
00:13:16.62\00:13:18.49
They said this is not
the traditional situation
00:13:18.53\00:13:23.30
that we have
approved in the past.
00:13:23.33\00:13:26.17
Specifically, that was
the US Supreme Court decision
00:13:26.20\00:13:28.87
in 1977,
00:13:28.90\00:13:30.37
once again funded
00:13:30.41\00:13:31.74
by the Right to Work Foundation,
00:13:31.77\00:13:33.11
called Abood v.
Detroit Board of Education.
00:13:33.14\00:13:35.78
And that case said that
00:13:35.81\00:13:37.81
compulsory union fees
can be charged in part.
00:13:37.85\00:13:42.02
You can't charge compulsory
fees for political activities,
00:13:42.05\00:13:45.69
you can charge
them for collecting
00:13:45.72\00:13:47.09
bargaining activities
00:13:47.12\00:13:48.46
and so the court said,
00:13:48.49\00:13:50.49
no this is not like Abood,
00:13:50.53\00:13:52.79
you can charge any money
00:13:52.83\00:13:55.06
for this home health caregivers.
00:13:55.10\00:13:57.67
That's good that
there was a definitive.
00:13:57.70\00:13:59.40
We'll be back
after a short break.
00:13:59.43\00:14:01.07