Will you believe this, that the court is not legislative in its actions, when the Janus ruling comes out? They are going to overrule decades of established labor laws.
There's decades of laws that made interracial marriage illegal (Loving v. Virginia), and the supreme court overruled them too. If the constitution forbids a government action then it's up to the supreme court to overrule it.
I'm not a lawyer and you'll be able to cite a thousand cases to my one. My sister's neighbor is on the state Supreme Court where I live. He's said to me that a good lawyer can argue any case and cite a bunch of reasons to support his/her case.
For me the case is simple. The collectively bargained rules apply to everyone in the workplace. As such those who benefit from said bargaining ought to pay for it. This has been an established practice for many, many years. Each state has the right to negate this and many have enacted misnamed right to work laws. There is no compelling reason to change the current practice. Janus' speech is not currently threatened and the greater public interest should be the one that prevails. It won't though.
I'd agree with you if it weren't for the fact that this is about the government and government employees everywhere you look.
I never understood how we as a society and how the labor union movement could tolerate the existence of public employee unions in the first place, as they end up intermingling two otherwise very distinct worlds, as I believe has happened here.
What you call "collective bargaining" in this case I could call "pure political pressure", since the "bargaining" is against politicians.
That sounds awfully Constitution-ey to me.
Janus is not really about free speech. It’s an attempt to destroy unions by letting people benefit from collective bargaining without paying for it. It’s called the free rider problem.
Because one is the government and the other isn't. That's my whole point about it being reasonable that this is a Constitutional issue.
There's also the, arguably separate, issues of incentives and who ultimately pays. In the case of private employers, it is, presumably a powerful few trying to exploit the labor of the many. In the case of government, it's the taxpayer/voter who is ultimately being bargained "against".
What are public employee unions trying to prevent? The exploitation by the many (voters) of the labor of the few? That seems wholly unreasonable to me.
> Why shouldn’t a union be political? Don’t workers have a right to gather in a group and be political? Government workers should be excluded from this activity?
(Again, not a union, but a public employee union:)
Because they are, in effect, circumventing the normal political process. By using the power to strike, they're seizing power from the voters.
Unions do not circumvent the normal political process. They are not seizing power from voters. Your view appears a bit extreme.
> A public employee union is not the government.
I'm not suggesting it is, as such. It is, however, made up of the people who operate the "machinery" of government, and it's the government witholding the dues from the paycheck that funds this union, so, again, of Constitutional significance.
> There should not be distinction between public employee union and private employee unions.
And I say there should. There's my assertion :)
> Unions do not circumvent the normal political process. They are not seizing power from voters. Your view appears a bit extreme.
They may be extreme, but that doesn't make them invalid on their face. I don't have a vested interest here, either.
Here's my vision of public employee unions not circumventing the normal political process:
Instead of "negotiating" with the power to strike, they can just go to the voters (and elected representatives) and campaign for their share of the tax dollars (or working conditions or whatever other legislation), just like every other special interest.
Of course this is just my opinion. I can’t claim it’s objectively correct.
It's one thing merely to disagree, but those words are another matter. They call for a bit more effort, especially since "reason" is usually objective.
I have made a concerted effort to outline how I come to the conclusion of circumvention of political process and Constitutionality, yet you've not directly responded to any of those explanations, especially not how someone reasonable might reach a less extreme conclusion.
> Workers should be able to band together to advance their cause without regard to whether or not they are public employees.
No disagreement there, but that's never been at issue. What's at issue is money, and money that's being forcibly taken. Alternatively, it's workers being forced to "band together".
What I'm saying is really going on is that they're able to "band together" to influence government appropriations in a way other than the normal political process (without saying normal process if fair/effective or not, since that's another topic).
> Working for the government should not necessarily mean that your rights get limited.
Why not? What happened to the notion of public service? No amount of wishing will ever turn it into the same kind of relationship as an employee has to a private employer.
> There are exceptions. Like for the military.
And why the inconsistency with respect to the military? To me, drawing a bright line there (instead of, say, at either, carrying a gun or "critical" public services) approaches a position of extremity.
I don't think those words mean what you think they mean. The word you're looking for is "unpopular".
> Most people do not see unions co-opting the normal political process.
You keep saying "unions", but I allege that this remains a verbal trick on the part of public employee unions, to lump themselves in with other unions.
I'm sure your statement is true on its face, but I'm not so sure it's true when applied only to public employee unions.
I'm much less sure of its truth when applied specifically to local groups of voters. Try asking some of the ones living in bankrupted municipalities.
> The exceptions I mentioned are exceptions in current law
This makes your argument/opinion very hard to follow, since you string together "should" statements with "is". Is that by design?
> Why shouldn’t a union be political?
By that argument, why shouldn't the government force you to donate money to political advocacy groups that it chooses, whether or not you support the group's agenda?
Heck, what if your employer decided that a portion of your paycheck would be deducted as a mandatory donation to either the Democratic or Republican party, as part of the terms of your employment?
And also negotiates on his behalf for better working conditions and pay.
At the end of the day, that person wants all the benefits of being in the union (enhanced negotiating power, benefits, etc), without any of the cost.
Sounds like he doesn't believe that they do, and would prefer to be left out of the bargaining unit.
> At the end of the day, that person wants all the benefits of being in the union (enhanced negotiating power, benefits, etc), without any of the cost
There's literally no evidence that he wants the union to provide any of that.
If that were true, then he would be suing to be left out of the bargaining unit.
If so, could you point to such lawsuits, especially successful ones?
It's not. The suit Janus actually filed is the closest thing to that.
You keep hammering on this claim, except it's clear Janus doesn't believe that he's benefiting from it. It's actually quite easy to find examples - from the very beginning of the labor movement up through today - of labor unions screwing over certain classes of members for political reasons. So it's pretty easy to imagine how Janus would have reason to believe he's being forced to pay for something that has a net negative impact on him.
He’s already entitled to a refund of the portion of union dues (if he decided to join it) that go to political activities. This is the Beck decision in the late 80s.
Actually, it is the role of the judiciary to determine if the legislature has overstepped the bounds of the authority granted to it by Congress, by providing public labor unions with a degree of special authority granted to no other entity. And, as explained elsewhere in this thread by an actual lawyer, there's a pretty solid case that it has.
Again, if this is what he believed, then he would be suing to get out of the bargaining unit.
The entire suit is a scam to weaken the power of unions. If the union has to act on behalf of you, but you don't have to pay, then very, very few people are going to actually pay for the union, and it will die.
The courts have already ruled that the unions can create contracts that exclude non-members from bargaining units (and therefore refuse representation to non-members) as long as they don't charge the non-members agency fees. If Janus wins the right not to pay an agency fee, that's what they'll do.
The only scam is in pretending that the unions are forced to represent people like Janus whether or not they receive fees. That's nonsense; it's their decision entirely to include non-members in the bargaining unit.
Since you are making a distinction about public vs. private unions it appears that this is not a constitutional issue. It seems to be one where you don’t like that they generally endorse and support one party over the other. There are very few entities that are neutral. All sufficiently large entities become political to some degree.
This is completely false. People absolutely are forced to join unions.
Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of union members - over 90% - never voted in a certification or authorization election. That means that, even if they're members of the union, their membership cannot in se be considered an endorsement of the union by the bargaining unit. Because it's all-but-impossible to successfully decertify a union in practice[0], it's not uncommon to have the majority of employees oppose union membership, but still be compelled into membership.
> They are, for the time being, in some states required to pay for fair share dues to cover the costs of collective bargaining, grievances, and other administrative costs
People within the bargaining unit are usually forced to pay dues whether or not they are members.
[0] The NLRB has the power to overturn the results of decertification, and a very strong incentive to do so. In addition, unions have learned that they can change the definition of the bargaining unit after an election is held in order to invalidate the election retroactively.
This is absolutely not true in the least. Unions tend to support candidates that will help and support them, just like anyone else who backs any other candidate.
Why are you asking me? Go find some conservatives and ask them.
Perhaps asking someone who has actually made both those statements would be more helpful than asking me.
Private entities can limit free speech all they want; public entities cannot.
Disagree with your ipse dixit labeling. The FAA is broad and general, at least according to SCOTUS precedent, covering all contracts between all parties, covering all types of conduct in all industries, as long as "commerce" is involved. In contrast, NLRA § 7 was targeted to one specific category of contractual parties, namely employees and employers, and protected employees' right to engage in one specific type of conduct, namely concerted activity in two specific areas, namely (1) wages and (2) the terms and conditions of employment.
Moreover, as Ginsburg's dissent correctly pointed out, as the later-enacted statute, § 7 implicitly overruled anything to the contrary in prior legislation — because it's risible to think that Congress, in enacting a court-enforceable right to concerted action by employees, intended to allow the very target of employees' concerted action, namely the employer, to unilaterally strip away that right as a practical matter, whether by insisting on a no-class-action arbitration provision or by any other means.
I'm reminded of a conversation I had many years ago as a law student: Knowing little (then) about litigation, I innocently asked a litigation partner: "A nonsuit [a unilateral dismissal of a case in Texas state court] can only be filed by the plaintiff, right, and not by the defendant?" He laughed and said "Right; otherwise I'd be hurrying back to my office and dictating a whole lot of defendants' nonsuits." But now under this SCOTUS decision, employers get to do essentially much the same as a defendant unilaterally dismissing a plaintiff's case, without so much as a by-your-leave to a court or anyone else.
I dunno about that — my guess is that Congress intended a heavy presumption: Anything that materially diminishes the right to concerted action is unlawful. I know, materiality will often be hotly contested. Here, though, an employer's ability to unilaterally take away one of employees' key enforcement weapons, viz., the class action, seems pretty freakin' material.
Public sector unions are nothing but trouble and every step toward their destruction is a good thing. The very idea of having organizations funded by tax dollars that subsequently influence their own regulation, pay rates, benefits, and pensions with those same tax dollars in exchange for votes from their members is ludicrous. It's the ultimate slush fund feedback loop and unless it's reigned in the rest of the tax base ends up holding the bag (or municipal bankruptcy!).
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus_v_AFSCME
[2]: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/supreme-court-decision...
It is a little disturbing when there is a chain of force exerted by government all the way from the original funds back to some kind of political activism.
The individual workers never have a chance to intervene in that chain. They have a collective right through their union vote, but free speech is an individual right. It would clearly be a free speech problem if you were forced to pay dues to the Republican or Democratic parties even though you have a vote within it.
It appears your position is that there is nothing good about public sector unions. Have they done no good? That's an extreme position. You say that every step toward their destruction is a good thing. I suppose that means you'd support illegal methods of destruction?
I'm in a public sector union. I pay union dues. That money comes from my pay and not taxpayers. My salary is paid for by the state but my dues come from my salary and are not part of my benefits. The union is not taxpayer funded. If you really think this then to the extent that my salary is used to pay for groceries does that make the supermarket partially taxpayer funded?
My union influences my workplace rules to the extent that they bargain my working conditions on my behalf. They have negotiators much more knowledgeable about negotiation than I am and they negotiate on my behalf. By law our workplace rules cover everyone whether or not they are in the union. It's reasonable to expect that everyone who benefits from the negotiation help pay for said negotiation.
Clearly, I'm not going to change your mind on the efficacy of unions; public or not. However, perhaps you will consider that your position is quite extreme. You can find no good?
I ask my liberal friends who decry Trump (as I do) can you name some good things he has done. Most can't. They are too extreme to even consider the other side. You sound like an extremist on this issue.
The most relevant one to Janus is the fact that you can't choose which union your dues go to - but you have a number of choices about how to feed yourself with your dollars. You can go to a restaurant; go to Smart & Final; go to Whole Foods; in general, those dollars are fungible and decisions about how they are spent are made by you, not by the state. In contrast, your only options with a union are to either attempt to influence union leadership as a member (which, by definition, every member with differing opinions cannot succeed at) or to switch jobs. For example. let's say you're a prison guard in California (and a member of the CCPOA), but you disagree with your union's lobbying and donations to increase prison sentences for non-violent drug offenders. Ostensibly, this is negotiation you are benefiting from, and fully within the responsibilities of a union. Union dues aren't really your money.
Wikipedia points to Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association, which has:
"Non-chargeable expenses include: Lobbying, electoral, or other political activities not directly related to contract bargaining or implementation;[144] political or public activities aimed at winning a greater budget for the collective bargaining unit;[140] litigation or publications reporting on litigation that does not concern directly concern the bargaining unit;[145] and public relations efforts (including informational picketing, media purchases, signs, posters, and buttons) designed to enhance public respect for the workers' profession"
I'm not a lawyer and I'm not sure what the difference is between this upcoming case and that one. But it sounds like the supreme Court has already ruled that lots of the behavior I find objectionable is not chargeable as an agency fee to nonmembers.
This is false; you can choose your workplace based on the union.
Is the landlord I rent from supported by taxpayer money because I’m a public employee that rents from him?
You can't have it both ways. If it's the employee's money, they have the right to do what they want with it, whether that means giving a portion to a union or keeping it for themselves.
If they don't have that legal right, then the money isn't theirs, and it's coming from taxpayers, because it's paid by the government.
1. Unions are not government funded. 2. Those who benefit from collective bargaining ought to help pay for it.
If your rent is automatically withheld from your paycheck as terms of your employment and given directly to your landlord, then yes, that logic might hold.
However, I'm betting that's not the case.
To society as a whole I'd say the net effect is negative. Note that I'm specific talking about public sector unions and not unions in general. And by net effect I'm referring to the overall effect on States and municipalities, not just the handful of members who receive direct benefit from the unions.
> That's an extreme position.
As a member of public sector union it may be extreme to you but that's your personal opinion. Being on the receiving end of any benefit of said unions would imply that you have biases of your own.
> You say that every step toward their destruction is a good thing. I suppose that means you'd support illegal methods of destruction?
You'd suppose incorrectly and I never suggested anything like that. Cheering the destruction of institutions that (IMHO) are a net negative to our society is neither illegal nor promotes illegal activity.
> I'm in a public sector union. I pay union dues. That money comes from my pay and not taxpayers. My salary is paid for by the state but my dues come from my salary and are not part of my benefits. The union is not taxpayer funded. If you really think this then to the extent that my salary is used to pay for groceries does that make the supermarket partially taxpayer funded?
The primary issue is that there is no competition for the public sector. By definition there is one government for a given region / level and it's in the interests of the public sector unions to ensure that government gets larger and pays them (and their members) more. That's the vicious feedback loop.
> My union influences my workplace rules to the extent that they bargain my working conditions on my behalf. They have negotiators much more knowledgeable about negotiation than I am and they negotiate on my behalf. By law our workplace rules cover everyone whether or not they are in the union.
Eliminating public sector unions doesn't mean that OSHA disappears. And if the pay or benefits are not enough to retain talent vs. the private sector then you're free to go find employment in the private sector. IMHO it's not the government's responsibility to provide you with a job.
> It's reasonable to expect that everyone who benefits from the negotiation help pay for said negotiation.
Again perhaps to you it is but you're also not giving someone the right to negotiate separate terms or avoid the system entirely. I say that right trumps yours.
> Clearly, I'm not going to change your mind on the efficacy of unions; public or not. However, perhaps you will consider that your position is quite extreme. You can find no good?
Again, I can't see any net good in the concept. It's too susceptible to abuse. Google "public sector union bankruptcy" for some fun reading.
> I ask my liberal friends who decry Trump (as I do) can you name some good things he has done. Most can't. They are too extreme to even consider the other side. You sound like an extremist on this issue.
I find it interesting that you've attempted to label me as an extremist three times in a single comment. A difference of opinion, a strong opinion, or a vocal one are never grounds for such crap.
Yes, the fact that workers face a monopsony (and one which can and does exempt itself from generally-applicable workplace laws) is why public sector unions are even more critical to avoid abusive employment conditions than private sector unions.
Source? Last I checked the public sector is covered by OSHA.
What rules apply to the private sector that don't apply to the public sector?
[1]: https://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/data_General_Facts/federal-emplo...
Federal agencies can apply alternate standards if they decide general OSHA rules don't work for them; while this requires DoL sign-off, IIRC, this option is not available to individual private employers.
> What rules apply to the private sector that don't apply to the public sector?
Aside from the above, another example is that a variety of regulations under FLSA, including standards for exemption, do not apply to federal employees when adopted by the Labor Department; OPM sometimes adopts conforming regulations that apply similar standards to the federal civilian workforce and sometimes does not.
Similarly, states often limit the applicability of their own labor laws to themselves, though they are of course bound by federal laws to the extent that they aren't either specifically exempted or Constitutionally immune.
And all Workman's compensation claims go through a government agency (Department of Labor).
With zero ability to sue or claim damages like you would have in other businesses.
If you get hurt via some hilariously OSHA-illegal workplace incident, the most you can hope for is a schedule reward of some number of your work weeks plus forced retirement, and most people have to fight to get that using their own resources and legal help. All the while being treated as a criminal or a draft dodger.
So in the end, an OSHA-unsafe environment has no repercussions to governmental organizations ($$ as normal or firing).
It is law that everyone gets the benefit from a union’s collective bargaining. It’s unreaonable to expect people who benefit from the bargaining to not pay for it. In economics it’s known as the free rider problem.
No, it's not. It's the law that unions must represent anyone whom they claim as part of their bargaining unit.
However, unions have great freedom to define bargaining units how they like. They already take advantage of that ability, in order to invalidate decertification elections (by retroactively choosing a differently-sized unit from the one that was eligible for the election).
The law you are citing exists because unions are authorized to collect dues from all members of a bargaining unit, including those who don't belong to the union. The law ensures that unions don't extract money from non-members while also refusing them representation. Otherwise, they would literally be allowed to charge as much as they want, and people who don't join would simply be paying for the benefits of the people who do.
There is no free-rider problem, because those members are only included in the bargaining unit because unions want to use them to pad their numbers. If they weren't able to collect dues from them, they would simply redefine their units and walk away with the same net revenue from their members.
The free rider problem occurs once so called right to work gets enacted. There is no free rider no because everyone pays fair share (in states that don’t have right to work laws).
Only because unions choose only to make contracts that cover non-members as part of their bargaining unit.
> The free rider problem occurs once so called right to work gets enacted. There is no free rider no because everyone pays fair share
There is no free-rider problem. Unions are free to create contracts that don't consider non-members to be part of the bargaining unit. That court ruling is 80 years old and completely uncontroversial and uncontested. Unions have systematically refused to do that, because they'd rather take an "all or nothing" stance.
It makes for a great political stance to pretend, "oh, we have to charge these other people fees because otherwise we'd be giving them representation for free", but in reality, they're the ones who are refusing to do business any other way. There is no free-rider problem, and there never has been.
They're not. And plenty of other organizations which receive tax dollars (any company that's ever done government contracting, for instance) engage in lobbying as well, and they're a much, much bigger problem.