5 ms·

It is unreasonable in my opinion to consider Janus a constitutional issue. It's not a free speech issue even though it has been popularly cropped as such. Peo

by sykh 8y ago

It is unreasonable in my opinion to consider Janus a constitutional issue. It's not a free speech issue even though it has been popularly cropped as such. People who benefit from collective bargaining ought to help pay for 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.

mmt 8y ago
> It is unreasonable in my opinion to consider Janus a constitutional issue. 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.
- sykh 8y ago
  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.
  - chimeracoder 8y ago
    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?
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      "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.
      - chimeracoder 8y ago
        > 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.
        s73v3r_ 8y ago
        "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.
        mmt 8y ago
        Forgive my ignorance, but is that even possible? If so, could you point to such lawsuits, especially successful ones?
rayiner 8y ago
The issue is that public unions are highly political animals. Being forced to fund them, just to have a government job, is akin to being forced to donate to a political party. We're not talking about neutral entities just looking out for worker's rights, but partisan entities typically in bed with the Democratic party.
- sykh 8y ago
  There is no distinction between public employee unions and private employee unions. People are not forced to join unions. 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 who join the union can get a refund of the portion of their dues that go to political activities. 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.
  - chimeracoder 8y ago
    > People are not forced to join unions. 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.

by sykh 8y ago

mmt 8y ago

> It is unreasonable in my opinion to consider Janus a constitutional issue. 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.

sykh 8y ago
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.
- chimeracoder 8y ago
  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?
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    "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.
    - chimeracoder 8y ago
      > 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.
      - s73v3r_ 8y ago
        "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.
        mmt 8y ago
        Forgive my ignorance, but is that even possible? If so, could you point to such lawsuits, especially successful ones?

rayiner 8y ago

The issue is that public unions are highly political animals. Being forced to fund them, just to have a government job, is akin to being forced to donate to a political party. We're not talking about neutral entities just looking out for worker's rights, but partisan entities typically in bed with the Democratic party.

sykh 8y ago
There is no distinction between public employee unions and private employee unions. People are not forced to join unions. 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 who join the union can get a refund of the portion of their dues that go to political activities. 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.
- chimeracoder 8y ago
  > People are not forced to join unions. 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.