|
(詳細は330 U.S. 75 (1947), is a 4-to-3 ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Hatch Act of 1939, as amended in 1940, does not violate the First, Fifth, Ninth, or Tenth amendments to U.S. Constitution.〔Moore, ''Constitutional Rights and Powers of the People,'' 1996, p. 203.〕 ==Background== At the start of the 20th century, several unions (such as the National Federation of Federal Employees, American Federation of Government Employees, and the United Federal Workers of America) began representing employees working for the federal government of the United States. The leadership of the United Federal Workers of America (UFWA) was leftist. The leadership was militant in its advocacy of the rights of its members and most of the national and local union leadership advocated leftist ideals; associated with left-wing intellectuals, activists, and political people; and supported left-wing organizations.〔Arnesen, "United Federal Workers of America/United Public Workers of America," in ''Encyclopedia of U.S. Labor and Working-Class History,'' 2006, p. 1445.〕 This led many politicians and others to believe the organization was Communist-controlled.〔 The political leanings of the UWFA led to passage of two pieces of legislation intended to restrict its political activities.〔 In June 1938, Congress passed a rider to appropriations legislation which prevented the federal government from making payments (such as salaries) to any person or organization which advocated the overthrow of the federal government (as many communist organizations at the time proposed).〔Goldstein, ''Political Repression in Modern America: From 1870 to 1976,'' 2001, p. 244.〕 In 1939, Congress passed the Hatch Act of 1939, which restricted political campaign activities by federal employees. A provision of the Hatch Act made it illegal for the federal government to employ anyone who advocated the overthrow of the federal government.〔 The UFWA immediately hired lawyer Lee Pressman to challenge the constitutionality of the Hatch Act.〔Gall, ''Pursuing Justice: Lee Pressman, the New Deal, and the CIO,'' 1999, p. 216.〕 Various individual employees of the federal government, some of whom were members of the United Public Workers of America, sought an injunction against the second sentence of §9(a) of the Hatch Act, and a declaration that the Act was unconstitutional.〔''United Public Workers v. Mitchell,'' 330 U.S. 75, 81-82.〕 On April 25, 1946, the State, County, and Municipal Workers of America (SCMWA) merged with the UFWA to form the United Public Workers of America.〔Lyons, ''Teachers and Reform: Chicago Public Education, 1929-1970,'' 2008, p. 104.〕〔Spero and Blum, ''Government As Employer,'' 1972, p. 214.〕〔"New Union Urges Wider Labor Law," ''New York Times,'' April 26, 1946.〕 Joining the new organization were several local unions which had been expelled from the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) for being communist-dominated.〔Slater, ''Public Workers: Government Employee Unions, the Law, and the State, 1900-1962,'' 2004, p. 126.〕 Congress repeatedly investigated the union for violations of the Hatch Act and prohibitions on advocacy of the right to strike. In January 1947, the House of Representatives Committee on Campaign Expenditures reported that it had found evidence that the UPWA (and other unions) had violated the Federal Corrupt Practices Act by failing to report expenditures in support of various political parties and candidates for federal office.〔"Voting Inquiry Hits 60 Unions, 11 Firms," ''New York Times,'' January 3, 1947.〕 In the 19th century, American courts had established the "doctrine of privilege." This legal doctrine concluded that public employment was a privilege, not a right, and subsequently significant restrictions could be placed on public employees that could not be constitutionally tolerated in the private sector.〔Rosenbloom and O'Leary, ''Public Administration and Law,'' 1996, p. 190-191.〕 By the middle of the 20th century, however, the doctrine of privilege had been markedly weakened. Abuse of the privilege had led to widespread corruption; the tolerance of sexual harassment, racism, religious discrimination, and gender discrimination; and workplace abuse (such as forcing employees to buy goods and services from a supervisor, or forcing employees to run errands for the supervisor).〔Rosenbloom and O'Leary, ''Public Administration and Law,'' 1996, p. 191.〕 The courts were becoming less and less tolerant of the doctrine of privilege.〔〔Rabin, Hildreth, and Miller, ''Handbook of Public Administration,'' 2006, p. 673.〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「United Public Workers v. Mitchell」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|