Pro-union demonstrators outside the United States Supreme Court in Washington, Jan. 11, 2016. Last week’s arguments in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association illuminated a gap in the Supreme Court’s treatment of capital and labor: The court has long allowed workers to refuse to finance unions’ political activities, but shareholders have no comparable right to refuse to pay for corporate political speech.
Pro-union demonstrators outside the United States Supreme Court in Washington, Jan. 11, 2016. Last week’s arguments in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association illuminated a gap in the Supreme Court’s treatment of capital and labor: The court has long allowed workers to refuse to finance unions’ political activities, but shareholders have no comparable right to refuse to pay for corporate political speech. ZACH GIBSON New York Times
Pro-union demonstrators outside the United States Supreme Court in Washington, Jan. 11, 2016. Last week’s arguments in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association illuminated a gap in the Supreme Court’s treatment of capital and labor: The court has long allowed workers to refuse to finance unions’ political activities, but shareholders have no comparable right to refuse to pay for corporate political speech. ZACH GIBSON New York Times

Politics & Government

Free-speech gap between unions and corporations

January 18, 2016 9:49 AM

  Comments  

Videos