6 ms·

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

by 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?
        chimeracoder 8y ago
        > Forgive my ignorance, but is that even possible? It's not. The suit Janus actually filed is the closest thing to that.
        sykh 8y ago
        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.
        chimeracoder 8y ago
        > 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.
        8y ago
mmt 8y ago
> 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.
- sykh 8y ago
  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.
  - mmt 8y ago
    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.

by sykh 8y ago

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?
      - chimeracoder 8y ago
        > Forgive my ignorance, but is that even possible? It's not. The suit Janus actually filed is the closest thing to that.
        sykh 8y ago
        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.
        chimeracoder 8y ago
        > 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.
        8y ago

mmt 8y ago

> 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.

sykh 8y ago
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.
- mmt 8y ago
  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.