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

[Johnny Sack 8397]

5 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

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.   

Yet somehow it seems to work for the police in the 28 states that have right to work laws and do not require union membership to get the public sector job. 

And somehow it worked in this country for hundreds of years before public sector unions first sprang up in 1959.

If they think it is worth it, they will join.  If not, they won't.  

 

Edited June 27, 2018 by Johnny Sack

[Nice Guy Eddie 13406]

1 hour 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.

You're celebrating a decision that was made in 1977.  that court case said that nonmembers cannot be forced to pay a union's political activities.   The "coerced" fees could only go to other activities like collective bargaining.  This case was about those fees.

Personally I think its perfectly fine that a non-member shouldn't have to pay into a union but then I'm ok if the union stops negotiating for them as well.  Meaning that the union can ask and perhaps achieve the results that their members get higher pay than the non-members.     "I represent 80% of the public workers.  We want to guarantee that on average we receive 5% more than the average non-member."    Done.

[bolverk 29394]

My personal view is that labor, regardless of sector, has the right to organize and bargain for workplace protections (which, if you read my post above, I could've used). I understand the sticky situation for those who desire to opt out of the union and not pay dues. In my case, I didn't earn representation. An argument could be made, however, that I may have received other benefits that had fought for by the union which means I was somewhat of a free-rider.

That, however, is a separate issue from campaign contributions. I'd be perfectly fine with abolishing union campaign contributions so long as corporations are also excluded from being able to do so.

[scottsins 1953]

I guess the 50th post of the thread would be a good place to actually discuss the analysis of the decision, specifically the free speech issue.  To me, that's easily the most compelling rationale for the majority opinion in this case.

 

ETA:  Bolverk mentioned this with the political contributions remark.  That's what I was referring to WRT the 1st Amendment.

Edited June 27, 2018 by scottsins

[Fozzz 152]

Interesting that the libertarian Eugene Volokh cosigned an amicus brief against the petitioner, which asserted:

Quote

Where Abood truly went wrong, however, was not in how it applied the new First Amendment objection it recognized. Rather, Abood erred by recognizing that objection in the first place. Compelled subsidies of others' speech happen all the time, and are not generally viewed as burdening any First Amendment interest. The government collects and spends tax dollars, doles out grants and subsidies to private organizations that engage in speech, and even requires private parties to pay other private parties for speech-related services—like, for example, legal representation. To be certain, these compelled subsidies are subject to otherconstitutional restrictions. For example, the government cannot compel payments that violate the First Amendment's Religion Clauses or the Equal Protection Clause. But a compelled subsidy does not itself burden a free-standing First Amendment interest in freedom of speech or association.

So if Abood misapplied the First Amendment, it undercut a First Amendment interest that Abood itself miscreated. If anything in Abood should be revisited, it is the existence of the First Amendment interest itself. That is also sufficient reason to reject Petitioner's request to expand Abood's First Amendment holding by overturning it in the other direction.

https://reason.com/volokh/2018/01/19/why-theres-no-first-amendment-problem-wi

I would like to know what the compelling state interest is for compelling my speech in bankrolling the despotisms in Egypt and the KSA. 

[DixonHur 11154]

Some people here act like they are benevolent organizations looking after mistreated workers.  Hell, I was on that side of the fence once, but having worked nearly 2 decades in industries that were heavily unionized...film and casino gaming...I can say without question that they are not.  Perhaps they once were, but none of us are old enough to remember those days.

Today they are simply bullies who represent a burden to business, and work counter to the public interest in government.  They are bloated, wasteful, and maddening to deal with. 

A couple of examples...

1. As a producer I once got "sanctioned" by IATSE (International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees) because I moved a lighting stand 2 feet so a couple guys carrying a large prop could pass more easily.  I thought I was helping...the union said I was stealing a union job. 
2. Folks who operate generators and those who drive the trucks that have the generators on them are in 2 different unions (IATSE and Teamsters), and are forbidden from doing each others' job.  While shooting in North Carolina once, there were no locals available who were authorized to "work" a generator...aka literally flip a switch...so we had to fly one in (first class), pay hotel and per diem, just for a guy to flip a switch on and off.  I know what you're thinking...well, maybe they wanted an expert in case something went wrong.  Nope.  If anything went wrong, that fell to the Teamsters because it was their truck/generator.  So we literally had two guys doing nothing but reading books all day...one we had to import, and the other who drove the truck...and only THAT truck, so we couldn't even use him to drive the passenger vans while the truck was stationary all day.
3. Speaking of 1st class flights...did you know ALL actors in SAG have to be flown 1st class?  Not just the stars, but every single one.  That's a union deal, not something negotiated by the actor's agent.

In short...unions are BS

 

[Foosters 17725]

23 minutes ago, scottsins said:

I guess the 50th post of the thread would be a good place to actually discuss the analysis of the decision, specifically the free speech issue.  To me, that's easily the most compelling rationale for the majority opinion in this case.

 

ETA:  Bolverk mentioned this with the political contributions remark.  That's what I was referring to WRT the 1st Amendment.

Is every expenditure speech? Serious question.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

17 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Interesting that the libertarian Eugene Volokh cosigned an amicus brief against the petitioner, which asserted:

https://reason.com/volokh/2018/01/19/why-theres-no-first-amendment-problem-wi

I would like to know what the compelling state interest is for compelling my speech in bankrolling the despotisms in Egypt and the KSA. 

How would you like it if government took your money and donated to a political candidate you opposed?

Edited June 27, 2018 by Johnny Sack

[Bat Guano 359]

The 1st amendment argument is specious. Nonmembers are already entitled to refunds of the portion of their dues spent on political activities.

[SDG 3319]

2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

So Johnny Sack opposes the police union.

Interesting.

Bad example. Police unions make it impossible to get rid of shitty officers...

[Nice Guy Eddie 13406]

20 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Some people here act like they are benevolent organizations looking after mistreated workers.  Hell, I was on that side of the fence once, but having worked nearly 2 decades in industries that were heavily unionized...film and casino gaming...I can say without question that they are not.  Perhaps they once were, but none of us are old enough to remember those days.

Today they are simply bullies who represent a burden to business, and work counter to the public interest in government.  They are bloated, wasteful, and maddening to deal with. 

A couple of examples...

1. As a producer I once got "sanctioned" by IATSE (International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees) because I moved a lighting stand 2 feet so a couple guys carrying a large prop could pass more easily.  I thought I was helping...the union said I was stealing a union job. 
2. Folks who operate generators and those who drive the trucks that have the generators on them are in 2 different unions (IATSE and Teamsters), and are forbidden from doing each others' job.  While shooting in North Carolina once, there were no locals available who were authorized to "work" a generator...aka literally flip a switch...so we had to fly one in (first class), pay hotel and per diem, just for a guy to flip a switch on and off.  I know what you're thinking...well, maybe they wanted an expert in case something went wrong.  Nope.  If anything went wrong, that fell to the Teamsters because it was their truck/generator.  So we literally had two guys doing nothing but reading books all day...one we had to import, and the other who drove the truck...and only THAT truck, so we couldn't even use him to drive the passenger vans while the truck was stationary all day.
3. Speaking of 1st class flights...did you know ALL actors in SAG have to be flown 1st class?  Not just the stars, but every single one.  That's a union deal, not something negotiated by the actor's agent.

In short...unions are BS

 

This 2010 article stated that the overall 1st class travel for actors is no longer in the agreement:  https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/sag-aftra-give-class-travel-43527

Or did that change since this article?  

[scottsins 1953]

25 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Is every expenditure speech? Serious question.

No.

[DixonHur 11154]

6 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

This 2010 article stated that the overall 1st class travel for actors is no longer in the agreement:  https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/sag-aftra-give-class-travel-43527

Or did that change since this article?  

Not sure, I left in '09...I've been in casino world since...but if so, that's definitely a step in the right direction.  It should be up the agent/manager to negotiate on behalf of an actor/actress, not a union.

[Fozzz 152]

27 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

How would you like it if government took your money and donated to a political candidate you opposed?

If it was putting more dollars in my pocket, then I don't think I would mind too much.  

[jimmyjazz 45538]

2 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

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.  

God damn that was funny.

[TrashMaster G 17385]

2 hours ago, DixonHur said:

Some people here act like they are benevolent organizations looking after mistreated workers.  Hell, I was on that side of the fence once, but having worked nearly 2 decades in industries that were heavily unionized...film and casino gaming...I can say without question that they are not.  Perhaps they once were, but none of us are old enough to remember those days.

Today they are simply bullies who represent a burden to business, and work counter to the public interest in government.  They are bloated, wasteful, and maddening to deal with. 

A couple of examples...

1. As a producer I once got "sanctioned" by IATSE (International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees) because I moved a lighting stand 2 feet so a couple guys carrying a large prop could pass more easily.  I thought I was helping...the union said I was stealing a union job. 
2. Folks who operate generators and those who drive the trucks that have the generators on them are in 2 different unions (IATSE and Teamsters), and are forbidden from doing each others' job.  While shooting in North Carolina once, there were no locals available who were authorized to "work" a generator...aka literally flip a switch...so we had to fly one in (first class), pay hotel and per diem, just for a guy to flip a switch on and off.  I know what you're thinking...well, maybe they wanted an expert in case something went wrong.  Nope.  If anything went wrong, that fell to the Teamsters because it was their truck/generator.  So we literally had two guys doing nothing but reading books all day...one we had to import, and the other who drove the truck...and only THAT truck, so we couldn't even use him to drive the passenger vans while the truck was stationary all day.
3. Speaking of 1st class flights...did you know ALL actors in SAG have to be flown 1st class?  Not just the stars, but every single one.  That's a union deal, not something negotiated by the actor's agent.

In short...unions are BS

 

Stories like this just fascinate me.  I have a couple from friends:

1 - A buddy was working for one of the Big 3 auto manufacturers in Indiana.  He got written up for moving his computer monitor from one side of his desk to another.

2 - Another buddy was representing his company (a Texas company) at a trade show in NYC.  Got screamed at by a union guy for plugging his laptop charger into a wall outlet.

None of this has anything to do with the thread topic, but I would love for some pro-union type to try to defend this kind of BS.

[hayden_horn 11360]

2 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

How would you like it if government took your money and donated to a political candidate you opposed?

this already happens.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

3 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

this already happens.

Besides planned parenthood?

[hayden_horn 11360]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Besides planned parenthood?

huh?