- Massachusetts AFL-CIO
- Massachusetts Labor
- Education & Training
- Organize or Die!
- Political Education
- About Political Education
- Election Year 2010
- The Mass. AFL-CIO and the Mass. Democratic Party
- Past Election Endorsements
- 2009/2010 US Senate Special Election to Replace the Late Edward Kennedy
- Election Year 2008
- Victory 2008: A Closer Look
- Victory Is Just The Beginning
- 2008 Endorsements
- Obama and Biden - The Ticket to Turn Around America
- McCain: McSame as Bush - Bad for Working Families
- Labor 2008: Massachusetts/New Hampshire 2008 Coordinated Campaign
- Vote NO on Question 1 - the campaign to defeat the ballot initiative to eliminate the income tax
- State Legislative Races
- March 2008 Special Election Endorsements
- 2007: Special Elections
- 2006: The Fight for Working Families
- The Employee Free Choice Act
- Register To Vote!
- Find Elected Officials
- Online Legislative/Government Directory
- The Real Romney Record
- Multimedia
- Links and Resources
- Legislative Action
- Legislative Department
- Labor Voting Records
- Legislative Agenda
- 2009-2010 Legislative Agenda
- Destination Resort Casinos
- Modernizing and Protecting Unemployment Insurance
- Paid Sick Days
- Plant Relocation
- Privatizing Contracts
- Protecting Against the Displacement of Current Employees
- Safer Alternatives to Toxic Chemicals
- Safety and Protection at Utility and Construction Sites
- Temporary Workers' Right to Know
- Workers' Compensation - Private Right of Action
- 2007-2008 Legislative Agenda
- 2005-2006 Legislative Agenda
- Define Member Contribution
- Edward Cohen Plaque
- Indexing the Minimum Wage
- Majority Authorization
- New Families Trust Fund
- Outsourcing
- Plant Relocation
- Proper Expenditure of and Accounting for State Funds
- Protecting Employees
- Regulating Outsourcing
- To Ensure Quality Appointments
- Worker's Compensation
- Workforce Solutions Act
- 2009-2010 Legislative Agenda
- Legislative Issues
- Testimony
- The Employee Free Choice Act
- Mass. House and Senate Web Broadcasts
- Online Legislative/Government Directory
- House Committees
- Senate Committees
- Massachusetts Boards and Commissions
- Labor in the Community
U.S. Chamber of Commerce Attacks Massachusetts “No Public Money” Law in Light of Supreme Court Decision
On Thursday, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Chamber of Commerce v. Brown that struck down a California law prohibiting the use of public funds to either assist or deter union organizing. Immediately after the ruling, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who brought the case to the Supreme Court on behalf of several organizations doing business with the state of California, submitted a press release stating that the Court's ruling will likely result in the invalidation of a similar Massachusetts law. However, a closer look at the respective statutes reveals that the Chamber's assault on the Massachusetts "No Public Money" law is spurious based upon the legal grounds on which the California law was found to be unconstitutional.
For the Massachusetts "No Public Money" statute to be found invalid, the law would have to include restrictions that are burdensome to the same extent of the California law, forcing employers to forgo their constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech, due to fear of excessive fines or litigation. Under all "No Public Money" laws, employers are permitted to engage in pro or anti-union speech, as long as they are not using public money to do so. Massachusetts AFL-CIO President Robert Haynes defended the merits of the Massachusetts statute, saying,
Justices Breyer and Ginsburg, who dissented on the case, wrote in their opinion that the statute did not limit the free speech of employers because there is no limit on the use of their own money to address labor-related issues. The dissenting Justices ask why, in light of the fact that states have broad legal authority in deciding how to spend the People's money, "should they be conscripted into paying" for expenditures related to management's position in labor organizing contests. The dissent, in their opinion, makes a compelling case that the statute in question was in fact constitutional, and also reinforces the necessity of "No Public Money" laws. It is precisely this reason why the Massachusetts statute was enacted, and why it must remain on the books. The State House News Service was the first to report on the Court decision in Massachusetts and quoted Massachusetts AFL-CIO Legislative and Communications Director Tim Sullivan in responding to the unfounded, predictable public relations spin by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The article is below.
»
|


