SCOTUS Rules in Janus - No More Involuntary Public Unions Dues For Political Contributions

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

And in the 22 states where the 7.8 million public sector unions were forced to donate to Democrats, they will now have to opt in (opt out was the other option)

I do not understand why public sector unions are even legal.  They destroying state finances.

 

[David Dennison 18,646]

You don't understand why collective bargaining is legal?

Really?

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

You don't understand why collective bargaining is legal?

Really?

Public sector collective bargaining, no.  I do not understand why it is legal.  It is a union representing government workers who negotiate with the very politicians they bought.  The taxpayer gets fucked.  And there is no market check like there is with private sector unions.  We did not even have public sector unions until 1959.  And they have been a disaster to the financial health of state and local governments.

Here is what FDR said about them:

Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.”

[Fozzz 152]

Seems like bullshit that the government can compel my speech by using my tax dollars to bomb people overseas.  I except a check in the mail.

[David Dennison 18,646]

3 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Public sector collective bargaining, no.  I do not understand why it is legal.  It is a union representing government workers who negotiate with the very politicians they bought.  The taxpayer gets fucked.  And there is no market check like there is with private sector unions.  We did not even have public sector unions until 1959.  And they have been a disaster to the financial health of state and local governments.

Here is what FDR said about them:

Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.”

FDR was wrong. 

Collective bargaining should exist wherever there are employees in every industry. Full stop.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

4 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Seems like bullshit that the government can compel my speech by using my tax dollars to bomb people overseas.  I except a check in the mail.

This was the immediate analogy I thought of when I heard the claims to the case.

[David Dennison 18,646]

So Johnny Sack opposes the police union.

Interesting.

[tantric superman 4,667]

No problem with arguments related to what union fees are used for.  Or how can can limit political contributions.

The idea that you don't understand why public sector folks can unionize seems kind of silly. 

[TrashMaster G 17,385]

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

FDR was wrong. 

Collective bargaining should exist wherever there are employees in every industry. Full stop.

Bullshit.  Collective bargaining only works as an adversarial system.  Collective bargaining with public sector unions is the absolute definition of the fox guarding the henhouse.  It should be 100% illegal for public entities to enter into CBAs.

[David Dennison 18,646]

3 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

No problem with arguments related to what union fees are used for.  Or how can can limit political contributions.

The idea that you don't understand why public sector folks can unionize seems kind of silly. 

Agreed.

But employees of all stripes should be allowed to unionize as a matter of right. 

[TrashMaster G 17,385]

3 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

No problem with arguments related to what union fees are used for.  Or how can can limit political contributions.

The idea that you don't understand why public sector folks can unionize seems kind of silly. 

They can unionize, sure.  Freedom of association is guaranteed.  

CBAs with public sector unions should be illegal.

[David Dennison 18,646]

3 minutes ago, TrashMaster G said:

Bullshit.  Collective bargaining only works as an adversarial system.  Collective bargaining with public sector unions is the absolute definition of the fox guarding the henhouse.  It should be 100% illegal for public entities to enter into CBAs.

Public employees are adversaries of the federal government when it comes to the employee/employer relationship.

So, we'll just disagree on that.

[TrashMaster G 17,385]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Public employees are adversaries of the federal government when it comes to the employee/employer relationship.

So, we'll just disagree on that.

How can it be adversarial when the guys on the other side of the bargaining table have contributed to your political campaigns?

It's a joke.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

8 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

So Johnny Sack opposes the police union.

Interesting.

I oppose all collective bargaining with public employees.  It is a disaster.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

3 minutes ago, TrashMaster G said:

How can it be adversarial when the guys on the other side of the bargaining table have contributed to your political campaigns?

It's a joke.

And there is no market check.  Private sector unions can only make so many financial demands as they know the company has to make a profit to survive.  That limitation does not exist for a CBA with the government.

[David Dennison 18,646]

2 minutes ago, TrashMaster G said:

How can it be adversarial when the guys on the other side of the bargaining table have contributed to your political campaigns?

It's a joke.

Name one elected politician who sits down at the bargaining table.

[Horn of Gabriel 1,590]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Name one elected politician who sits down at the bargaining table.

Be smarter than that.  It's the politician's appointees and the people who work for the politicians.

[David Dennison 18,646]

3 minutes ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

Be smarter than that.  It's the politician's appointees and the people who work for the politicians.

Right. People who don't take contributions.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

The reason why public sector unions require so much cash is because the are essentially fundraising arms for the Democrat party, and until now, much of that fundraising has been legally mandated even among people who would otherwise despise the union's political priorities.

The idea that public sector unions are apolitical entities, doing their best to improve the work conditions of their members who would be exploited if not for the unions, is a quaint century-old idea. The modern public sector union is made up of government employees with cushy work environments, and whose mission is to elect Democrats with forced union dues.

Private sector unions are fine.  Public sector unions are dirtier than the mafia.  And more harmful.

[Horn of Gabriel 1,590]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Right. People who don't take contributions.

Who directly report to those who do and can often be either terminated, have their career growth shunted or be warehoused if they don't acquiesce.  This isn't a hard concept  and there are lots of other arguments against this ruling, why go for the bad one?

[Fozzz 152]

Really odd that we've been having these massive teacher strikes (including wildcat strikes) in multiple states when it's very well known and understood that the government and public unions are in cahoots.  

Edited June 27, 2018 by Fozzz

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

Seems like this decision transfers some power from the workers to the State.

Maybe I’m seeing it wrong but that’s what it smells like.

[TrashMaster G 17,385]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Right. People who don't take contributions.

Are you really simple enough to believe that the people sitting at the bargaining table actually make the decisions?  That the elected officials are completely hands-off in the process?  That the political appointees, whose very jobs are dependent upon the re-election of their boss, are not doing what they can to insure his/her re-election?

Do you also believe in unicorns?

[David Dennison 18,646]

3 minutes ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

Who directly report to those who do and can often be either terminated, have their career growth shunted or be warehoused if they don't acquiesce.  This isn't a hard concept  and there are lots of other arguments against this ruling, why go for the bad one?

I don't necessarily oppose the ruling.

I'm opposed to the idea that public sector unions shouldn't be allowed to collectively bargain with management.

[Fozzz 152]

Anyone know how much political spending comes from pro-union interests versus anti-union interests? Wonder which side spends more? lmao

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/03/31/vital-stats-corporate-and-labor-pac-spending/

Well, what do you know!

Edited June 27, 2018 by Fozzz

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

4 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Anyone know how much political spending comes from pro-union interests versus anti-union interests? Wonder which side spends more? lmao

Which side are the big corporations on?

Edited June 27, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[bolverk 29,394]

5 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

The reason why public sector unions require so much cash is because the are essentially fundraising arms for the Democrat party, and until now, much of that fundraising has been legally mandated even among people who would otherwise despise the union's political priorities.

The idea that public sector unions are apolitical entities, doing their best to improve the work conditions of their members who would be exploited if not for the unions, is a quaint century-old idea. The modern public sector union is made up of government employees with cushy work environments, and whose mission is to elect Democrats with forced union dues.

Private sector unions are fine.  Public sector unions are dirtier than the mafia.  And more harmful.

Bullshit. As a public employee for the State of Texas, I had an option to join the union. I did not and got royally fucked by my political appointee boss when I voiced concerns about your tax dollars going to some shady shit. I suppose I could've gone public, but I didn't want my career to be ruined. I essentially had zero employment protections without being a union member.

[David Dennison 18,646]

6 minutes ago, TrashMaster G said:

Are you really simple enough to believe that the people sitting at the bargaining table actually make the decisions?  That the elected officials are completely hands-off in the process?  That the political appointees, whose very jobs are dependent upon the re-election of their boss, are not doing what they can to insure his/her re-election?

Do you also believe in unicorns?

Are you really simple enough to believe that the politicians and appointees could not be taken out of the collective bargaining equation if need be? There are any number of ways for the government to collectively bargain with employees without including elected officials. 

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

Private sector unions are fine.  They are a negotiation at the bottom line of the business but they know that if they go too far, demand too much they are just pilfering their way out of a job.

Public Sector unions...Business is bad? Fuck you, pay me!
Tax base is shrinking? Raise taxes; Fuck you, pay me!
We provide a shitty service to the public? Fuck you, talk to my union rep.

[TrashMaster G 17,385]

5 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

The abstract discussion about whether public sector unions should even exist distracts from the actual case, which is about whether public sector unions can essentially coerce payments from NONMEMBERS to support the union’s random political causes.   It is basically ruling that protection rackets are wrong, and it’s crazy this has been going on until now.

Yepyepyep!

[TrashMaster G 17,385]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Are you really simple enough to believe that the politicians and appointees could not be taken out of the collective bargaining equation if need be? There are any number of ways for the government to collectively bargain with employees without including elected officials. 

No, there's not.  The elected officials OWN THE BUDGET.

[David Dennison 18,646]

3 minutes ago, TrashMaster G said:

No, there's not.  The elected officials OWN THE BUDGET.

Like it's so hard for non-elected officials to negotiate within the parameters of a budget.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

8 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

The abstract discussion about whether public sector unions should even exist distracts from the actual case, which is about whether public sector unions can essentially coerce payments from NONMEMBERS to support the union’s random political causes.   It is basically ruling that protection rackets are wrong, and it’s crazy this has been going on until now.

The case certainly had merit for the reasons above. However, the consequences can be unfortunate for workers.

[deadshank 24,651]

7 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Private sector unions are fine.  They are a negotiation at the bottom line of the business but they know that if they go too far, demand too much they are just pilfering their way out of a job.

Public Sector unions...Business is bad? Fuck you, pay me!
Tax base is shrinking? Raise taxes; Fuck you, pay me!
We provide a shitty service to the public? Fuck you, talk to my union rep.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

If you've got a good product, it will sell itself. No need to force participation.

Maybe this decision gets public unions to actually work for their members instead of being a fundraising arm of the Democrat party.

[David Dennison 18,646]

4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

If you've got a good product, it will sell itself. No need to force participation.

Maybe this decision gets public unions to actually work for their members instead of being a fundraising arm of the Democrat party.

That's almost as likely as c-suite executives actually working for labor instead of being a fundraising arm of the Republican Party.

So you see, we're in a bit of a pickle.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

That's almost as likely as c-suite executives actually working for labor instead of being a fundraising arm of the Republican Party.

So you see, we're in a bit of a pickle.

C Suite executives have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders, not labor.  No one is forcing anyone to work for anyone else.  13th Amendment out front should have told you.  No one is forcing labor to give to the GOP either.

[BabaYaga 15,205]

8 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

That's almost as likely as c-suite executives actually working for labor instead of being a fundraising arm of the Republican Party.

So you see, we're in a bit of a pickle.

You're running out of talking points and ignoring the sizable number of mega-corporations ingratiated with the left - we can start with most of Silicon Valley and go from there.  

Edited June 27, 2018 by BabaYaga

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

Yes, the big corporations on the dem side are the problem.

Edited June 27, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Ragnarok 103]

Public sector should be illegal, and they were for a long time. What people feared would happen has happened. Democrats negotiate ever increasing packages, confident that a portion of it will be returned as campaign contributions and as votes.   There is is just an inherent conflict of interest, and the one getting screwed is the taxpayer.  Mr. Sack is correct on all counts.

[BabaYaga 15,205]

This is why the left has a case of the vapors.  It's got nothing to do with labor  - check out the top contributors to the DNC

Top Organization Contributors

I have little doubt the media will spin this as a huge loss of revenue to the unions and democrats without saying that the revenue comes as an expense to the taxpayer.  Private sector unions are an anachronism who's main skill is inflating the cost of doing business without any regard to market forces or the economics of their industry.

[Fozzz 152]

12 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

This is why the left has a case of the vapors.  It's got nothing to do with labor  - check out the top contributors to the DNC

Top Organization Contributors

I have little doubt the media will spin this as a huge loss of revenue to the unions and democrats without saying that the revenue comes as an expense to the taxpayer.  Private sector unions are an anachronism who's main skill is inflating the cost of doing business without any regard to market forces or the economics of their industry.

Is it an anachronism for wages to keep pace with productivity?

[seven 1,366]

I do not believe you should have to pay dues to a union you don't belong to, so I agree with this ruling. 

 

As far as the existence of public sector unions, I support the right for workers to act in and advocate for their best interests. 

[Foosters 17,725]

4 minutes ago, seven said:

I do not believe you should have to pay dues to a union you don't belong to, so I agree with this ruling. 

 

As far as the existence of public sector unions, I support the right for workers to act in and advocate for their best interests. 

And you agree that non-union members shouldn't be eligible to receive benefits negotiated by that union?

[Laxtonto 11,927]

13 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

This is why the left has a case of the vapors.  It's got nothing to do with labor  - check out the top contributors to the DNC

Top Organization Contributors

I have little doubt the media will spin this as a huge loss of revenue to the unions and democrats without saying that the revenue comes as an expense to the taxpayer.  Private sector unions are an anachronism who's main skill is inflating the cost of doing business without any regard to market forces or the economics of their industry.

3 Unions in the top 10, all with more than 90+% of their donations (approximately 35M in total) to Democrats/Liberals causes.

To me, th is an extremely telling list and makes me curious who determines in these organizations which donations are made.

If we were expecting this to actually reflect the population, wouldn't these values be closer to 60/40 or 50/50 instead of so heavily one sided?

The other thing that stands out to me is that in the top 10 only one is hovering around 50/50.

Yeah... I'm a data whore. This is an absolutely fascinating list to dig into. Thanks for sharing this.

 

[Brew 3,045]

12 minutes ago, Foosters said:

And you agree that non-union members shouldn't be eligible to receive benefits negotiated by that union?

This is the piece that makes no sense. There is no way for non members not to receive some tangible benefit for union negotiated benefits.

[seven 1,366]

15 minutes ago, Foosters said:

And you agree that non-union members shouldn't be eligible to receive benefits negotiated by that union?

Absolutely 

[GHOSTUSER 361]

Excellent ruling by the Supreme Court. One of the best things that can happen in this country is the death of public service unions which are strangling cities and states around the country forcing taxpayers to pay for unfunded pension liabilities. Public service unions create a  vicious cycle of politicians pandering to them for campaign contributions while passing the buck to future generations for poorly funded pension plans that are a weight around the neck of the municipalities across the country. Getting Gorsuch on the SC was huge. 

Edited June 27, 2018 by Iconoclast Texan

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,406]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

So Johnny Sack opposes the police union.

Interesting.

I guess he thinks every cop should individually negotiate their salary and retirement plan based on their individual performance.  Best cop gets best salary and benefits.  Worst cop gets the worst compensation.  Then sprinkle in the 1000s of cops in between.  This should be an easy exercise for the police HR to manage.   

[F250 28,674]

1 hour ago, deadshank said: