留学生law作业代写 底特律教育

Keywords:留学生law作业代写 底特律教育

1977年，最高法院对Abood诉底特律教育委员会一案提出了支持和反对机构收费的论点。本案原告是为（Abood诉Board el）在该行业工作的非工会雇员的集合。等，1977年）。向法院提出的问题是，密歇根州的一项法令允许雇主强迫非工会成员向教育工作者工会支付相当于工会费用的服务费。原告辩称，他们不赞成公共部门内的集体谈判进程以及他们利用资金开展的政治和意识形态活动（Abood诉Board el。等，1977年）。这就使得对工会的强制捐款违反了原告根据第一修正案和第十四修正案获得的结社自由。最高法院法官作出了一项有利于被告底特律教育委员会的决定，指出只要资金用于与互利行动有关的开支，例如：申诉调整目的、集体谈判和合同管理（Abood诉Board el。等，1977年）。所给出的理由是，第一修正案赋予原告的权利只与为支持某一特定意识形态而采取的行动有关的费用；但是，这并不免除对集体谈判等费用的贡献，因为它不支持特定意识形态，相反，这是为了支持这个行业。
留学生law作业代写 底特律教育
 In 1977 the supreme court case of Abood v. Detroit Board of Education presented arguments for and against agency fees. The plaintiff of the case was a collection of non-union employees working in the industry for (Abood v. Board el. Et., 1977). The issue presented to the court was that a Michigan state statute had allowed employers to force non-union members to pay a service charge to the educator’s union in equivalence to the union’s costs. The plaintiffs argued that they did not approve of the process of collective bargaining within the public sector and of the political and ideological activities which they were using the funding to conduct (Abood v. Board el. Et., 1977). This then makes the forced contribution to the union a violation of the plaintiffs’ freedom of association derived from their First Amendment and their Fourteenth Amendment. The justices of the supreme court gave a decision in favor of the defendant, Detroit Board of Education, stating that as long as the finances were used for expenses relating to mutually beneficial actions such as: grievance adjustment purposes, collective bargaining, and contract administration (Abood v. Board el. Et., 1977). The reasoning that was given was that the First Amendment rights given to the plaintiffs only pertain to the costs associated with actions taken in support of a given ideology; however, that does not exempt contribution to costs such as collective bargaining because it is not in support of specified ideology, rather it is in support of the industry.