[highest selling price] john coltrane blue train watercolor retro poster

Abood is therefore overruled. … For some 40 years, john coltrane blue train watercolor retro poster Abood has struck a stable balance—consistent with this Court’s general framework for assessing public employees’

john coltrane blue train watercolor retro poster

Its members ratify and approve such agreements in the manner provided by the labor organization’s governing requirements. AFGE, Local 2000, AFL–CIO , 14 FLRA 617. john coltrane blue train watercolor retro poster  Rarely if ever has the Court overruled a decision–let alone one of this import—with so little regard for the usual principles of stare decisis. There are no special justifications for reversing Abood. It has proved workable. No recent developments have eroded its underpinnings. And it is deeply entrenched, in both the law and the real world. More than 20 States have statutory schemes built on the decision. Those laws underpin thousands of ongoing contracts involving millions of employees. Reliance interests do not come any stronger than those surrounding Abood. And likewise, judicial disruption does not get any greater than what the Court does today. That holding fit comfortably with this Court’s general

framework for evaluating claims that a condition of public employment violates the First Amendment. The Court’s decisions have long made plain that government entities have substantial latitude to regulate their employees’ speech—especially about terms of employment—in the interest of operating their workplaces effectively. Abood allowed governments to do just that. While protecting public employees’ expression about non-workplace matters, the decision enabled a government to advance important managerial interests—by ensuring the presence of an exclusive employee representative to bargain with. Far from an “anomaly” … the Abood regime was a paradigmatic example of how the government can regulate speech in its capacity as an employer. 2. The State’s extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public-sector employees violates the First Amendment. Abood erred in concluding otherwise, and stare decisis cannot support it.