Participants: Lincoln Steed (Host), Bruce N. Cameron
Series Code: LI
Program Code: LI000329A
|
00:28 Welcome to the Liberty Insider.
00:30 This is the program that brings you news, 00:32 views, discussion, up-to-date information 00:34 and analysis of religious liberty events 00:37 in the US and around the world. 00:39 My name is Lincoln Steed, Editor of Liberty Magazine, 00:43 and my guest on the program is Bruce Cameron, 00:46 Law Professor at Regent University. 00:49 And, Bruce, 00:50 this is a return engagement for you. 00:54 Few years ago, I think it was, 00:55 I know you were on this program? 00:57 That's right. 00:58 It was great then, 01:00 and it's great to be with you in today. 01:01 And the world has changed, 01:02 but some of the same concerns that you specialize, 01:05 you know with us very much. 01:07 And I need to give our viewers a little heads up 01:10 that your specialty is the union, 01:15 since some of the legal complications 01:17 that come with this whole union issue. 01:19 And for Seventh-day Adventist 01:21 this resonates deeply 01:23 because Ellen White writing to the early Adventist Church 01:26 had many, often very strong comments 01:29 to say about the inadvisability of union membership. 01:32 Right? Right. 01:34 And their impact on religious liberty. 01:36 And events at the very end of time. 01:39 That is right. 01:40 As you know the church has a teaching 01:43 that suggest that church members 01:45 should not be members of labor unions. 01:47 Right. 01:48 So it's an important earliest recommendation. 01:50 It's a recommendation 01:51 that members probably best not to join. 01:54 Now, there's a lot of talk about the Supreme Court. 01:57 Now you're a lawyer, and you know 01:58 that's the highest point. 02:03 Everything sort of devolves 02:05 finally to what the court thinks on a topic. 02:08 Final word, it is. 02:09 What is one of their recent decisions 02:13 that has a deep impact on the union situation? 02:17 Well, there have been a couple of decisions recently. 02:20 We'll probably take one in one show. 02:22 They are wonderful when it comes to labor unions 02:26 and religious liberty and freedom of speech. 02:30 Both of these decisions were funded 02:33 by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. 02:35 They paid the bill for the litigation. 02:38 The first one was a case called 02:40 Knox versus Service Employees International Union 1000. 02:44 A case that had to do with, 02:46 I won't get into the detail so much, 02:48 but it was an issue about what unions have to do 02:53 before they can collect compulsory fees 02:56 from non-members. 02:57 But what came out of that opinion, 02:59 that's so important is that 03:01 the United State Supreme Court for the very first time 03:06 said that the right not to support the union, 03:12 the right to stand apart from a labor union 03:15 is a protected first amendment 03:17 protected by the highest standards of the constitution. 03:21 Now the highest standard of the constitution 03:23 that has is a compelling state interest that is, 03:26 if you have first amendment right, 03:28 Lincoln, and the government wants to take it away from you, 03:31 if it's a right protected 03:33 by the compelling state interest, 03:34 the government has to show a compelling interest 03:37 in taking your right away. 03:39 Theoretically a very high bar, isn't it? 03:41 Very high bar. 03:42 Most statutes that are subjected to the compelling 03:46 state interest standard do not survive. 03:49 And so the Supreme Court said, 03:52 compelling state interest must be shown, 03:54 whenever someone's write 03:56 to stand apart from the labor union is interfered. 04:00 You know I can't resist, 04:01 throw again two comments on this. 04:05 This whole organizations that get their funding by 04:08 revving up their members about 04:10 the wickedness of the Supreme Court 04:11 and its bad directions and its partisan nature 04:17 and yet it's a very good decision on this topic. 04:20 That's right, that's right 2012... 04:21 And then the other thing and I think, 04:23 in spite of the fact this is no state secret 04:26 that the present administration are very 04:28 favorable toward union, 04:31 you know I'm speaking about that before the election. 04:33 Yes. 04:34 The Obama administration have been very private union. 04:36 Right. 04:37 But you would have thought that, 04:39 they would have been at least tilting publicly 04:43 and maybe he presses the wrong word. 04:45 Oh, they are tilting. 04:46 Who is that, I mean, what's going on 04:48 with the National Labor Relations Board, 04:50 which is what is very important to employees, 04:54 most private sector employees has been very negative, 04:59 that is the Obama administration 05:02 and his appointees at the National Labor Relations Board 05:06 are pushing quickie elections son employees... 05:09 Now you opened up on this... 05:10 Right. 05:12 I mean, so employees don't hear both sides, 05:17 they were trying to push card check 05:19 where employees don't have the right to secret ballot, 05:23 there have been all sorts of things 05:24 and in fact the courts have had drain 05:26 the Obama administration in, 05:28 because it was making appointments that were illegal. 05:33 It was making recess appointments 05:35 when Congress was not really in recess. 05:39 So that was the Supreme Court decision. 05:40 Oh, but that was not really in recess. 05:41 Not, not according to Supreme Court. 05:43 I know about recess appointments 05:45 and you know that's I got to think that, 05:48 is that's it's not so much specified in the constitution, 05:51 but it fits within the constitutional norm, right. 05:54 Well, when the US Supreme Court looked at this issue, 05:58 about whether or not there were 06:00 members of the National Labor Relations Board, 06:02 they'd been properly recess appointed 06:04 whether or not the general counsel 06:06 of the National Labor Relations Board 06:08 had been properly recess appointed. 06:10 They went through 06:11 the constitutional legal background 06:13 and said, what President Obama had done was illegal, 06:18 which meant that large number of cases had to be re-decided. 06:23 Yeah, yeah. 06:25 So yes, there has been a push, 06:26 but there's also a push back... 06:27 So that's good. 06:29 In this case the Supreme Court have acted judiciously. 06:34 They acted judiciously. 06:35 We were involved in that litigation anyway. 06:36 Now this was before Justice Scalia died. 06:39 Yes. 06:40 So he was part of that decision. 06:42 Yes, he was part of that decision. 06:45 That's correct. 06:46 So tell us a little bit more about this case 06:50 and how it came to battle or what you see, 06:54 we'll follow from this. 06:55 Good things, I'm sure. Yeah, good things. 06:57 While the Knox case was a set up for another case, 07:01 we had before the United States Supreme Court. 07:03 Two years later called Harris v. Quinn. 07:06 Now, let me give you a background, 07:08 because I think your viewers will be interested in it. 07:13 When I was growing up... 07:14 It depends on papers, this is low lecture 07:17 of what doesn't speaks, this is good. 07:20 I hope our viewers really watching regularly, 07:23 I mean it's a mix bag but we have a lot of legal expense 07:27 and a number of law professors, 07:29 and I think it's a privilege 07:30 for all of us be talking to you, 07:32 just try to get these tutorials. 07:34 Well, it's a privilege for me to be talking to you. 07:36 But this is more of a story. 07:38 When I was growing up, if you were old and poor, 07:42 the government would support you 07:44 by putting you in a warehouse for old people 07:48 and it was really kind of a sad situation, 07:50 where all these oldsters warehoused together. 07:53 But somebody came up with his great idea 07:57 that instead of paying 07:58 to warehouse, old poor people, 08:01 why not pay their children to take care of them, 08:04 or friend to take care of them, 08:06 or some other acquaintance or relative. 08:11 And so, what happened was a number of states 08:14 went to this model, 08:15 where if you are the poor oldster, 08:18 you could select the person who would be your caregiver. 08:22 And the government would pay your caregiver. 08:26 I hate to be writing on, not your parade, 08:29 but the US parade, 08:31 this is quite common in other western countries. 08:33 Oh, well, maybe we got it from some place else. 08:38 But where we thought it to begin with. 08:39 But it's a very good idea. 08:41 Oh, it's a great idea. 08:42 Because instead of these institutions, impersonal, 08:46 you have someone who cares about you 08:48 and as the oldster getting help, 08:50 you could hire and fire the person who is helping you. 08:53 Well, organized labor has long been losing members, 08:58 they're on a hunt to find members 09:00 wherever they can. 09:01 And so in where I would call liberal states 09:05 that had this kind of situation, 09:07 the unions went to their friends in their legislature 09:11 and said, here's that we'd like to have you a do. 09:14 We would like to have you declare 09:16 that the caregiver is an employee of the state. 09:21 But in some ways it's really pulling the cloak off 09:25 the whole church at the state aid discussion that we have. 09:31 I know this is not analogy, this is what's happening. 09:33 But we've always said 09:35 in the religious liberty department 09:36 that when a school in particular takes state many, 09:41 there is a sense of control and this proves it. 09:43 Well. 09:45 It's directly as money given to a family member 09:48 to be a caregiver and they could be regarded in someway 09:51 as an employee. 09:52 But the end of story is not gonna help you, Lincoln. 09:54 No. 09:55 And as you know, 09:57 you and I disagree on this point. 09:59 But so what happened was the state declared 10:02 these caregivers employees, 10:06 essentially for the purpose of paying union dues. 10:09 And the result was that millions of dollars 10:12 were siphoned out of the welfare system 10:15 into the coffers of organized labor. 10:17 And there were Seventh-day Adventist 10:19 for example, 10:21 who are taking care of their parents, 10:22 Seventh-day Adventist who had disabled children, 10:25 or taking care of their children, 10:27 who found that they had to suddenly pay union dues. 10:31 But in my view this is state subsidy 10:33 of the union caused itself. 10:35 Absolutely. 10:36 No question about it. 10:38 It's fiddle to call it union dues. 10:39 Well, it's a fiddle to call them 10:41 employees of the state, right. 10:43 And so we had filed lawsuits in numerous federal courts 10:48 trying to challenge this scheme, 10:51 because we were trying to stand up for employees, 10:55 new employees relatives, 10:56 who object is supporting the union, 10:59 and we thought the whole scheme was a scam. 11:03 We lost all those cases until we got the US Supreme Court 11:07 Harris v. Quinn 2014 following upon Knox, 11:11 the Supreme Court said "Well, we decided, 11:14 that the state has to show compelling state interest 11:18 to interfere with first to memorize, 11:21 to reframe from supporting union, 11:23 there is no compelling state interest here. 11:26 This is not collective bargaining 11:28 in a traditional sense. 11:30 This is just forcing someone to accept the lobbyist 11:34 to represent you. 11:36 Supreme Court said it's unconstitutional. 11:40 And what was the break on the decision? 11:42 The decision was 5-4 in favor of the individual employees. 11:49 And so as a result, every individual 11:52 in the United States was a caregiver, 11:54 who did not want to support labor union 11:57 was freed from supporting a labor union. 11:59 Every Seventh-day Adventist 12:00 was having a crisis of conscience 12:02 on this was freed from having to support the union. 12:06 Were there any union requirements 12:09 that would have affected 12:12 how they gave care to their family members? 12:16 Well, see that was one... 12:17 I mean this is separate issue then, 12:19 they should be required to give the money. 12:20 Well, that's part of the scam... 12:22 How were they getting the hook in 12:24 'cause I can't see that 12:25 the union would have a role in... 12:28 They didn't, this was the outrage of it 12:31 because the employer is the poor oldster, 12:34 who is hiring and firing thecaregiver. 12:37 There would be state standards about giving care. 12:41 Not union standards. 12:42 Not union standards. 12:44 So union could lobby on it, 12:45 but the bottom-line is that it really was a fraud 12:50 in the sense that the troupers 12:53 that control the employment relationship 12:55 was the oldster, not the government. 12:58 This was simply a scheme 12:59 in order to enrich labor unions. 13:02 And did the majority opinion identified as this? 13:08 As the scam? Yeah. 13:09 No, they didn't use that term. 13:12 But sometimes Scalia was inclined to use 13:14 some rather in tempered language 13:16 even in some decisions. 13:18 They said this is not the traditional situation 13:23 that we have approved in the past. 13:26 Specifically, that was the US Supreme Court decision 13:28 in 1977, 13:30 once again funded 13:31 by the Right to Work Foundation, 13:33 called Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. 13:35 And that case said that 13:37 compulsory union fees can be charged in part. 13:42 You can't charge compulsory fees for political activities, 13:45 you can charge them for collecting 13:47 bargaining activities 13:48 and so the court said, 13:50 no this is not like Abood, 13:52 you can charge any money 13:55 for this home health caregivers. 13:57 That's good that there was a definitive. 13:59 We'll be back after a short break. |
Revised 2016-08-22