3 ms·

> 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.
    - chimeracoder 8y ago
      > 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.
      - sykh 8y ago
        It’s not the role of the Supreme Court to be the legislature. The suggestion that Janus’ free speech rights are being impinged upon are ridiculous. It’s not a solid case. It’s not even spurious reasoning. It’s absurd to think that Janus' free speech is being impinged. You can find lawyers who think Brown v Board of Edication was terrible. You can find lawyers who think Obama was not born in the U.S. It’s the argument that matters. Appealing to what one lawyer says is not such a great foundation. It’s clear the Supreme Court is going to overstep it’s mandate and legislate. They are going to throw out well established case law in favor a flimsy free speech argument. I believe fair share rules apply to all unions in states that don’t have right to work. I’m not sure on this though.
        mmt 8y ago
        > are ridiculous > It’s absurd This isn't the first time you've used words that insult the intellect of someone who holds an opinion you merely disagree with. You fail to address the specific points that others have made, instead choosing to tar their whole argument as "ridiculous" and "absurd". If it were either of those things, you wouldn't have to say so. It doesn't further the conversation and strikes me as little more than a re-iteration of previous assertions.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    "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.
    - chimeracoder 8y ago
      > 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.

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.
  - chimeracoder 8y ago
    > 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.
    - sykh 8y ago
      It’s not the role of the Supreme Court to be the legislature. The suggestion that Janus’ free speech rights are being impinged upon are ridiculous. It’s not a solid case. It’s not even spurious reasoning. It’s absurd to think that Janus' free speech is being impinged. You can find lawyers who think Brown v Board of Edication was terrible. You can find lawyers who think Obama was not born in the U.S. It’s the argument that matters. Appealing to what one lawyer says is not such a great foundation. It’s clear the Supreme Court is going to overstep it’s mandate and legislate. They are going to throw out well established case law in favor a flimsy free speech argument. I believe fair share rules apply to all unions in states that don’t have right to work. I’m not sure on this though.
      - mmt 8y ago
        > are ridiculous > It’s absurd This isn't the first time you've used words that insult the intellect of someone who holds an opinion you merely disagree with. You fail to address the specific points that others have made, instead choosing to tar their whole argument as "ridiculous" and "absurd". If it were either of those things, you wouldn't have to say so. It doesn't further the conversation and strikes me as little more than a re-iteration of previous assertions.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  "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.
  - chimeracoder 8y ago
    > 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.