Hacker News Reader

Comment by sykh | Hacker News Reader

Government is an employer. With the exception of the military employees have a right to unionize subject to certain constraints. Why distinguish between public vs. private? 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?

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.

View on HN

> Why distinguish between public vs. private?

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.

A public employee union is not the government. With limited exceptions being a public employee does not mean you forfeit your rights. There should not be distinction between public employee union and private employee unions. If workers come together to bargain as a unit then they should be allowed to do so wether they are public employees or not.

Unions do not circumvent the normal political process. They are not seizing power from voters. Your view appears a bit extreme.

This response strikes me as mainly "truth through repeated assertion", without any refutation.

> 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.

We assert different things. I claim your view that unions circumvent the political process is a bit extreme. Workers should be able to band together to advance their cause without regard to whether or not they are public employees. Working for the government should not necessarily mean that your rights get limited. There are exceptions. Like for the military.

Of course this is just my opinion. I can’t claim it’s objectively correct.

If you're claiming mere opinion, then why characterize my position as "extreme" and "unreasonable"?

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 claim it’s extreme and unreasonable because it’s outside of the view most people have on the issue. Most people do not see unions co-opting the normal political process. Most people don’t think being a public employee ought to mean giving up rights. The exceptions I mentioned are exceptions in current law, not necessarily exceptions that I support. The law has inconsistencies in it. In the comments one lawyer mentioned that the government can’t censor and this is of course not true. CIA employees have limits on their free speech rights for instance.

> I claim it’s extreme and unreasonable because it’s outside of the view most people have on the issue.

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?

Janus is about a case in which a person is being forced to pay money out of his paycheck to a group who directly lobbies for policies that he does not support.

> 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?

"Janus is about a case in which a person is being forced to pay money out of his paycheck to a group who directly lobbies for policies that he does not support."

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.

> And also negotiates on his behalf for better working conditions and pay.

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.

"Sounds like he doesn't believe that they do, and would prefer to be left out of the bargaining unit."

If that were true, then he would be suing to be left out of the bargaining unit.

Forgive my ignorance, but is that even possible?

If so, could you point to such lawsuits, especially successful ones?

> Forgive my ignorance, but is that even possible?

It's not. The suit Janus actually filed is the closest thing to that.

Janus is not about being left out of the bargaining unit. It’s about not being forced to pay for collective bargaining that all the workers benefit from. That they all benefit from it is clear when you compare non collectively bargained workplaces with those that are.

> Janus is not about being left out of the bargaining unit. It’s about not being forced to pay for collective bargaining that all the workers benefit from.

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 is free to believe this. He is free to advocate that his state become a so called right to work state. It’s not the place of the Supreme Court to play the role of the legislature. Janus’ claims to having his free speech impinged are ridiculous. He can’t point to an aspect of free speech that he can’t now do but could if he didn’t help pay for his collectively bargained contract. His claims in this regard are ridiculous.

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.

> It’s not the place of the Supreme Court to play the role of the legislature. Janus’ claims to having his free speech impinged are ridiculous. He can’t point to an aspect of free speech that he can’t now do but could if he didn’t help pay for his collectively bargained contract.

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.

"You keep hammering on this claim, except it's clear Janus doesn't believe that he's benefiting from it."

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.

> 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....

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com