Janus vs. afscme - an attack on Public Employee Unions (politician, party)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm pretty sure that the court will side with Janus it was 4-4 last time it went to the court, now they have the federalist society tool Gorsuch so it's in the bag
Strict Constitutionalist Gorsuch will side with liberty, honor Freedom of Association, no doubt.
I don't know where you live but if it's in a right to work state you have the option of paying only the portion of dues that go toward collective bargaining, arbitration and grievance representation, that figure should be readily available - if not ask your shop steward.
What if I negotiated a better sub contract for myself as a scab, than the union was getting for the collective?
I have done that before at a ski resort in Lake Placid 30 years ago.
That makes no sense, corporations and other interests hiring lobbyists and donating money to politicians aren't doing anything different than what you are trying to accuse unions of, it's just that in the private sector it's on a much grander scale than unions. If benefits in the private sector are too low, then I guess those employees just need to email the CEO, considering that some folks here think unions are obsolete or unnecessary that must be how it works, right?
Again, what private organizations seek to do (as is their constitutional right) is one thing. Hell, even what public sector unions seek to do in this regard is one thing. What is another thing, however, is an organization (public sector union or even private sector union for that matter) that has the force of government behind it in mandating that individuals give money to the union as a condition of employment. The government action in requiring such monetary participation on the part of citizens is what makes the difference here. Regardless of whether you think it is a worthy cause, no one seriously disputes that an organization is free to raise funds to use to influence politics, etc. But that's not the issue here.
Wouldn't it be easier for the individual states just pass RTW laws rather than going to SCOTUS?
I was in a local government public sector union as a worker bee and later after a promotion to management had to deal with the union. Pluses and minuses to both sides but overall it was beneficial to both sides. I was a worker bee when the union was voted in.
It was not some gold plated job environment some of you folks seem to think public unions are all about.
This was in a RTW state and there was no pro ration of dues for non union members. Didn't want to join? You pay zero. The state was red and where I lived was deep, deep red. Some folks were so far right if Regan were to be reincarnated some would call him a communist.
When the initial organizing was going on the two people screaming the loudest against a union were the highest paid employees-the manager and the attorney. Guess what? THEY BOTH HAD EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS. Good enough for them but not the rest of us.
It was not some incestous relationship that some here have posted about. The management side of the table were people who HATED unions. The vast majority of time we had the same pay raises and benefits that the other 1000+ non union employees had.
The big advantage was discipline. Management would arbitrarily change rules, ignore ones they didn't like at the moment, and just make stuff up as they went along. Before the union a disciplinary hearing was a charade. The outcome was already decided so the hearing was to give the illusion of fairness. The employer would stack the room with upper management and decide where everyone would sit. This was all to intimidate the employee who sat there-all alone.
After the union there is a set of rules and procedures that both sides must abide by. Employees can have a union rep at a hearing who could remain unemotional and ensure the rules were being followed. When I was a manger at these hearings I did not find the rep to be crazy protective like some here seem to think. They were reasonable as long as management was reasonable.
The thing I find hypocritical is the government management has their own unions except they are called lobbyists. These folks lobby the legislature often in conflict with union lobbyists. Eliminate the union lobby eliminates their competition. I don't get to directly decide where my union dues go-just like I don't get to decide where the politicians spend my tax money for lobbying.
The problem is that leftist, loony states like CA and NY would never pass RTW laws; the union influence is just that crippling in such states. But such a reality shouldn't prevent the Constitution from prevailing, which is why I'm glad the Supreme Court took up this case.
Public Unions are a huge conflict of interest. They should never have been legal. They bargain against the taxpayer who pays them. Nobody forced them to be public sector employees. GET A REAL JOB!
Public Unions are a huge conflict of interest. They should never have been legal. They bargain against the taxpayer who pays them. Nobody forced them to be public sector employees. GET A REAL JOB!
Your killing me man!!!!
P.S. No taxpayer pays me ratepayer yes....
The problem is that leftist, loony states like CA and NY would never pass RTW laws; the union influence is just that crippling in such states. But such a reality shouldn't prevent the Constitution from prevailing, which is why I'm glad the Supreme Court took up this case.
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.
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.
Only if it is a CONSTITUTIONAL issue which all the states signed off on when they became states, like the Bill of Rights.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,585,101 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1
Public Unions are a huge conflict of interest. They should never have been legal. They bargain against the taxpayer who pays them. Nobody forced them to be public sector employees. GET A REAL JOB!
So you would tell a cop or a fire fighter that they don't have a "real job"?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
