4 ms·

Public sector unions are nothing but trouble and every step toward their destruction is a good thing. It appears your position is that there is nothing good ab

by sykh 8y ago

Public sector unions are nothing but trouble and every step toward their destruction is a good thing. 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.

charleslmunger 8y ago
The parent comment was a bit excited, but there are major differences between money you use for groceries and money used for union dues. 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.
- sykh 8y ago
  The supermarket analogy I used was solely to point out that unions are not publicly financed. It is the law that union members can get a refund on their portion of dues used for political purposes. I think you may not be aware of that.
  - charleslmunger 8y ago
    I didn't know there was a law about a refund - do you have a link to that?
    - sykh 8y ago
      You could Google it. Here’s a link: https://www.unionfacts.com/article/political-money/ https://www.unionfacts.com/article/political-money/
      - charleslmunger 8y ago
        The case you linked refers to Beck, which is a ruling on the NRLA which as far as I can tell does not apply to the public sector. 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.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  "The most relevant one to Janus is the fact that you can't choose which union your dues go to" This is false; you can choose your workplace based on the union.
koolba 8y ago
> It appears your position is that there is nothing good about public sector unions. Have they done no good? 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.

by sykh 8y ago

charleslmunger 8y ago

The parent comment was a bit excited, but there are major differences between money you use for groceries and money used for union dues. 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.

sykh 8y ago
The supermarket analogy I used was solely to point out that unions are not publicly financed. It is the law that union members can get a refund on their portion of dues used for political purposes. I think you may not be aware of that.
- charleslmunger 8y ago
  I didn't know there was a law about a refund - do you have a link to that?
  - sykh 8y ago
    You could Google it. Here’s a link: https://www.unionfacts.com/article/political-money/ https://www.unionfacts.com/article/political-money/
    - charleslmunger 8y ago
      The case you linked refers to Beck, which is a ruling on the NRLA which as far as I can tell does not apply to the public sector. 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.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
"The most relevant one to Janus is the fact that you can't choose which union your dues go to" This is false; you can choose your workplace based on the union.

koolba 8y ago

> It appears your position is that there is nothing good about public sector unions. Have they done no good? 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.