Janus vs. afscme - an attack on Public Employee Unions (financial, Michigan)

[PilgrimsProgress]

Public unions are driving cities to bankruptcy.

[tom1944]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

Victory for Janus = Freedom for all

As long as that freedom extends to the right to not provide free representation

You seem to always ignore that part

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by tom1944

As long as that freedom extends to the right to not provide free representation

You seem to always ignore that part

I am not sure JANUS covers it.

SC must stay within scope of cases presented.

I love that Gorsuch is a Strict Constitutionalist.

If JANUS does not cover it, union is free to bring issue up, and can see if SC will accept their case.

[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

[BobNJ1960]

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

That would be a state by state decision.

Janus will be a national decision.

[wutitiz]

Originally Posted by RMD3819

That actually makes some sense as to why, although I don't agree with it.

What it does expose is the hypocrisy of the far right. They scream about "smaller government" and "let the states decide" but when the states don't decide in their favor they want the federal government to intervene.

This is a First Amendment case. Janus feels that he is being made to subsidize political speech with which he disagrees. Cite me the example where the "far right" has ever said that the U.S. government should not be able to enforce the U.S. Constitution.

[wutitiz]

The problem with public sector unions is that they are a kickback scheme. The contracts are negotiated between the union, and the reps of politicos whom the union helped elect. This would be unethical or illegal in most contexts. If you told your boss, "boss give me a $1000 raise, and I'll kick back $500 of it to you," you would both be fired if found out. But this is essentially how public sector union contract negotiations work.


I am pro-union. There are good arguments that even public sector employees need some form of representation. However massive reform is needed to the current system to somehow eliminate the kickback aspect. Perhaps we will get that after the Janus decision is announced.

[tom1944]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

That would be a state by state decision.

Janus will be a national decision.

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

[wutitiz]

BTW, I don't think it's a slam dunk that Gorsuch will hand the victory to Janus. There are good arguments on both sides of the case. Janus argues that he is being forced to subsidize speech. We do that all the time w/ taxes. As a taxpayer, I was forced to help pay for a stupid 'drug free zone' sign on a sidewalk near where I live. Somehow I doubt that the druggies are persuaded to quit by that sign.


Given that the 4 conservative justices all ruled 'yes' on a similar case last year, which ended in a 4-4 tie (Friedrichs vs Caif. teachers' assoc), the odds do favor Janus.

[tom1944]

And I believe it should with the caveat that they address the free rider issue that Scalia wrote about in Abood.