3 ms·

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.

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.
        sykh 8y ago
        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.

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.
        sykh 8y ago
        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.