Janus vs. afscme - an attack on Public Employee Unions (party affiliation, lawyers)

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by tom1944

You think requiring organizations to represent people who are not members of that group or organization is constitutional

Until a court case says otherwise, that is existing law.

Nothing prevents a union from filing a low level court case on it, and running it up the legal chain.

That is what Janus did.

[tom1944]

I asked what you think

Try not to dodge

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by tom1944

I asked what you think

Try not to dodge

I am surprised union has not run this through courts, but unless they do, court should not address it.

[StillwaterTownie]

Originally Posted by Tonyafd

I worked in government. Being in a union is better than not. During and after the financial crisis of 08, non union management did not get raises for six years.

Florida is a right to work state. Unions become difficult to form and maintain. Some call Florida's poor salaries the Sun tax. Sun tax, haha.

So, the minimum wage in Florida is $8.25. That is higher than in Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas, which is $7.25.

[StillwaterTownie]

Originally Posted by evilnewbie

It's easy to spend someone else's money but not your own...

Then how are you able to tolerate being taxed? Don't you quite strongly believe that involuntary taxation only amounts to theft and must be banned?

[StillwaterTownie]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

I believe people should be free to join, or not join any union. I also believe it should be an independent decision vs choosing where to work.

If unions offer a good product, 100% will join willingly, post Janus.

But why should any worker in a unionized workplace be foolish enough to give so much as a dime to the union as long as under the law all of them must be represented by the union under the law, whether they are union members, or not?

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

That would be a state by state decision.

Janus will be a national decision.

No it wouldn't be a state by state decision, it would require revising or amending the NLRB and I'm quite sure that won't happen and I'm also sure the money behind case this knew that when they decided to get the Supreme Court to vote on it, the fix was in with the Koch/Mercer tool Gorsuch on the court.

This was not some kind of grassroots case brought by some poor guy named Janus it was part of an attack on unions that has been underway for years, largely financed by the Kochs, DeVos, Scaife, and the Walton family
https://www.epi.org/publication/janu...esent-workers/

You can brag and gloat all you want but what you need to keep in mind is that those players don't care about you either and given their power and money you just might find yourself at the losing end of one of their well funded SCOTUS cases. Sometimes you gotta be careful what you wish for Bob.

[StillwaterTownie]

Originally Posted by tom1944

Or get legislation passed that would simply say only paying members of an organization are entitled to the services of that organization.

Even R's would vote for that

I doubt that. Republicans would very much welcome keeping a law that could force unions into bankruptcy from being required to support too many workers who are not paying dues.

[StillwaterTownie]

Originally Posted by PilgrimsProgress

Public unions are driving cities to bankruptcy.

Republicans can easily solve that problem by banning public workers in cities from forming unions.

[StillwaterTownie]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

Most have had great job growth.

And the union free Southeast auto plants pay extremely well, with great benefits, btw.

No wonder. They want to discourage unions there by paying decent wages and benefits. But how long would that last if auto unions are disbanded in Michigan? Not very long.