Janus v. AFSCME
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Janus_v._AFSCME an entity of type: Thing
Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, _ US _ (2018) est une jurisprudence du droit du travail aux États-Unis, concernant le droit des syndicats à percevoir des cotisations auprès de non-membres afin de conduire des négociations collectives. En vertu de la Loi Taft-Hartley de 1947, ces accords de sécurité peuvent être autorisé par la loi d'un État. Janus v. AFSCME remet en question leur légalité.
rdf:langString
Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, No. 16-1466, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), abbreviated Janus v. AFSCME, was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on US labor law, concerning the power of labor unions to collect fees from non-union members. Under the Taft–Hartley Act of 1947, which applies to the private sector, union security agreements can be allowed by state law. The Supreme Court ruled that such union fees in the public sector violate the First Amendment right to free speech, overturning the 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education that had previously allowed such fees.
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Janus v. AFSCME
rdf:langString
Janus c. AFSCME
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Mark Janus v.American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees,Council 31, et al.
xsd:integer
56693346
xsd:integer
1121053667
rdf:langString
Sotomayor
rdf:langString
Kagan
xsd:integer
10
11
14
16
rdf:langString
Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor
rdf:langString
Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Gorsuch
<second>
172800.0
<second>
25920.0
rdf:langString
___
xsd:integer
585
xsd:gMonthDay
--02-26
xsd:integer
2018
rdf:langString
Janus v. AFSCME,
xsd:gMonthDay
--06-27
xsd:integer
2018
rdf:langString
William
rdf:langString
Eugene
rdf:langString
David F.
rdf:langString
Benjamin I.
rdf:langString
Mark Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, et al.
rdf:langString
No public-sector employees who have refused membership in trade unions may be compelled to pay union dues to said unions because of the benefits that they may receive from their collective bargaining. When applied to public-sector workers, "fair share" agreements violate the First Amendment protections of both free association and free speech.
rdf:langString
Forte
rdf:langString
Sachs
rdf:langString
Baude
rdf:langString
Volokh
rdf:langString
Janus v. AFSCME
rdf:langString
Alito
rdf:langString
Supreme Court
xsd:integer
171
xsd:integer
552
xsd:integer
1046
rdf:langString
___
rdf:langString
The Supreme Court, 2017 Term — Comment: Compelled Subsidies and the First Amendment
rdf:langString
Agency Fees and the First Amendment
rdf:langString
To Speak or Not to Speak, That Is Your Right: Janus v. AFSCME
rdf:langString
https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/171-204_Online.pdf| year=Nov. 2018
rdf:langString
https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/171-204_Online.pdf| year=Feb. 2018
rdf:langString
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/supreme-court-review/2018/9/2018-cato-supreme-court-review-7.pdf| year=2018
xsd:integer
131
132
564
573
578
585
2017
xsd:integer
2011
2014
2016
2018
rdf:langString
Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, _ US _ (2018) est une jurisprudence du droit du travail aux États-Unis, concernant le droit des syndicats à percevoir des cotisations auprès de non-membres afin de conduire des négociations collectives. En vertu de la Loi Taft-Hartley de 1947, ces accords de sécurité peuvent être autorisé par la loi d'un État. Janus v. AFSCME remet en question leur légalité.
rdf:langString
Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, No. 16-1466, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), abbreviated Janus v. AFSCME, was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on US labor law, concerning the power of labor unions to collect fees from non-union members. Under the Taft–Hartley Act of 1947, which applies to the private sector, union security agreements can be allowed by state law. The Supreme Court ruled that such union fees in the public sector violate the First Amendment right to free speech, overturning the 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education that had previously allowed such fees.
rdf:langString
no
rdf:langString
Abood v. Detroit Board of Education
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
25868