[Someone1234]

Time to pressure congress to change this.

A lot of people see SCOTUS decisions and think the matter closed, but congress with the flick of a pen could completely ban arbitration for employee contracts.

The employer/employee relationship is by its nature power imbalanced. If employers band together and all require arbitration (as they likely will via a standardised templated contract) employees cannot do much.

[jeffdavis]

+1

The supreme court is not a legislative body. It's fun when your side wins, but that's essentially the same as hoping for a benevolent dictator.

The most important SCOTUS cases are constitutional ones limiting the legislative branch, not becoming a second legislature.

[sykh]

Will you believe this, that the court is not legislative in its actions, when the Janus ruling comes out? They are going to overrule decades of established labor laws.

[dantheman]

The Janus ruling will be about whether public sector unions can force government employees to pays dues to their union. If you believe this is compelled speech, it doesn't matter if there are decades of laws -- they are invalid.

There's decades of laws that made interracial marriage illegal (Loving v. Virginia), and the supreme court overruled them too. If the constitution forbids a government action then it's up to the supreme court to overrule it.

[sykh]

Yes, there are instances of decades of legal precedent being overturned. In the case of Janus though I think it's a bit different. For one, I think the argument that being forced to pay fair share dues constitutes compelled speech is not even specious. It's, on it's face, wrong in my opinion. So Janus appears from my perspective to be more on the legislative side. This is especially so given that Gorsuch in the ruling that the thread is nominally about said that it's up to the legislature to change things.

[rayiner]

If the Supreme Court overrules Abood in Janus, that'll be the Court doing its job to invalidate statutes that infringing Constitutional protections. Here, where there was no Constitutional concern, the Supreme Court did its job to give effect to a more specific Act of Congress (the FAA) over the more general policy in a different statute (the NLRA).

[sykh]

It is unreasonable in my opinion to consider Janus a constitutional issue. It's not a free speech issue even though it has been popularly cropped as such. People who benefit from collective bargaining ought to help pay for it.

I'm not a lawyer and you'll be able to cite a thousand cases to my one. My sister's neighbor is on the state Supreme Court where I live. He's said to me that a good lawyer can argue any case and cite a bunch of reasons to support his/her case.

For me the case is simple. The collectively bargained rules apply to everyone in the workplace. As such those who benefit from said bargaining ought to pay for it. This has been an established practice for many, many years. Each state has the right to negate this and many have enacted misnamed right to work laws. There is no compelling reason to change the current practice. Janus' speech is not currently threatened and the greater public interest should be the one that prevails. It won't though.

[mmt]

> It is unreasonable in my opinion to consider Janus a constitutional issue.

I'd agree with you if it weren't for the fact that this is about the government and government employees everywhere you look.

I never understood how we as a society and how the labor union movement could tolerate the existence of public employee unions in the first place, as they end up intermingling two otherwise very distinct worlds, as I believe has happened here.

What you call "collective bargaining" in this case I could call "pure political pressure", since the "bargaining" is against politicians.

That sounds awfully Constitution-ey to me.

[sykh]

Government is an employer. With the exception of the military employees have a right to unionize subject to certain constraints. Why distinguish between public vs. private? Why shouldn’t a union be political? Don’t workers have a right to gather in a group and be political? Government workers should be excluded from this activity?

Janus is not really about free speech. It’s an attempt to destroy unions by letting people benefit from collective bargaining without paying for it. It’s called the free rider problem.

[rayiner]

The issue is that public unions are highly political animals. Being forced to fund them, just to have a government job, is akin to being forced to donate to a political party. We're not talking about neutral entities just looking out for worker's rights, but partisan entities typically in bed with the Democratic party.

[sykh]

There is no distinction between public employee unions and private employee unions. People are not forced to join unions. They are, for the time being, in some states required to pay for fair share dues to cover the costs of collective bargaining, grievances, and other administrative costs. People who join the union can get a refund of the portion of their dues that go to political activities.

Since you are making a distinction about public vs. private unions it appears that this is not a constitutional issue. It seems to be one where you don’t like that they generally endorse and support one party over the other. There are very few entities that are neutral. All sufficiently large entities become political to some degree.

[dctoedt]

> the Supreme Court did its job to give effect to a more specific Act of Congress (the FAA) over the more general policy in a different statute (the NLRA).

Disagree with your ipse dixit labeling. The FAA is broad and general, at least according to SCOTUS precedent, covering all contracts between all parties, covering all types of conduct in all industries, as long as "commerce" is involved. In contrast, NLRA § 7 was targeted to one specific category of contractual parties, namely employees and employers, and protected employees' right to engage in one specific type of conduct, namely concerted activity in two specific areas, namely (1) wages and (2) the terms and conditions of employment.

Moreover, as Ginsburg's dissent correctly pointed out, as the later-enacted statute, § 7 implicitly overruled anything to the contrary in prior legislation — because it's risible to think that Congress, in enacting a court-enforceable right to concerted action by employees, intended to allow the very target of employees' concerted action, namely the employer, to unilaterally strip away that right as a practical matter, whether by insisting on a no-class-action arbitration provision or by any other means.

I'm reminded of a conversation I had many years ago as a law student: Knowing little (then) about litigation, I innocently asked a litigation partner: "A nonsuit [a unilateral dismissal of a case in Texas state court] can only be filed by the plaintiff, right, and not by the defendant?" He laughed and said "Right; otherwise I'd be hurrying back to my office and dictating a whole lot of defendants' nonsuits." But now under this SCOTUS decision, employers get to do essentially much the same as a defendant unilaterally dismissing a plaintiff's case, without so much as a by-your-leave to a court or anyone else.

[rayiner]

I agree that the characterization of which is more specific is the hairiest part. To me, the main issue is that the NLRA Section 7 does not address contracts specifically. One can imagine lots of things that have an incidental effect on exercising the right to bargain collectively; I don't think the NRLA can be read as preempting all of those things.

[dctoedt]

> One can imagine lots of things that have an incidental effect on exercising the right to bargain collectively; I don't think the NRLA can be read as preempting all of those things.

I dunno about that — my guess is that Congress intended a heavy presumption: Anything that materially diminishes the right to concerted action is unlawful. I know, materiality will often be hotly contested. Here, though, an employer's ability to unilaterally take away one of employees' key enforcement weapons, viz., the class action, seems pretty freakin' material.

[koolba]

Not GP but I sure will be. For the curious see [1] and [2] for more info about this case.

Public sector unions are nothing but trouble and every step toward their destruction is a good thing. The very idea of having organizations funded by tax dollars that subsequently influence their own regulation, pay rates, benefits, and pensions with those same tax dollars in exchange for votes from their members is ludicrous. It's the ultimate slush fund feedback loop and unless it's reigned in the rest of the tax base ends up holding the bag (or municipal bankruptcy!).

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus_v_AFSCME

[2]: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/supreme-court-decision...

[FireBeyond]

That money is the worker's earned salary. Once they earned it, it was no longer "your tax dollars" "funding unions".

[jeffdavis]

That's the question though: is it the worker's money? If so, shouldn't they be able to do whatever they want with it, instead of giving it to the union?

It is a little disturbing when there is a chain of force exerted by government all the way from the original funds back to some kind of political activism.

The individual workers never have a chance to intervene in that chain. They have a collective right through their union vote, but free speech is an individual right. It would clearly be a free speech problem if you were forced to pay dues to the Republican or Democratic parties even though you have a vote within it.

[s73v3r_]

If the worker doesn't want to join the union, they don't have to take the job. The main issue here is that the union is required to negotiate on behalf of everyone at the job, not just it's members.

[spaginal]

Couldn’t agree more.

[sykh]

Public sector unions are nothing but trouble and every step toward their destruction is a good thing.

It appears your position is that there is nothing good about public sector unions. Have they done no good? That's an extreme position. You say that every step toward their destruction is a good thing. I suppose that means you'd support illegal methods of destruction?

I'm in a public sector union. I pay union dues. That money comes from my pay and not taxpayers. My salary is paid for by the state but my dues come from my salary and are not part of my benefits. The union is not taxpayer funded. If you really think this then to the extent that my salary is used to pay for groceries does that make the supermarket partially taxpayer funded?

My union influences my workplace rules to the extent that they bargain my working conditions on my behalf. They have negotiators much more knowledgeable about negotiation than I am and they negotiate on my behalf. By law our workplace rules cover everyone whether or not they are in the union. It's reasonable to expect that everyone who benefits from the negotiation help pay for said negotiation.

Clearly, I'm not going to change your mind on the efficacy of unions; public or not. However, perhaps you will consider that your position is quite extreme. You can find no good?

I ask my liberal friends who decry Trump (as I do) can you name some good things he has done. Most can't. They are too extreme to even consider the other side. You sound like an extremist on this issue.

[charleslmunger]

The parent comment was a bit excited, but there are major differences between money you use for groceries and money used for union dues.

The most relevant one to Janus is the fact that you can't choose which union your dues go to - but you have a number of choices about how to feed yourself with your dollars. You can go to a restaurant; go to Smart & Final; go to Whole Foods; in general, those dollars are fungible and decisions about how they are spent are made by you, not by the state. In contrast, your only options with a union are to either attempt to influence union leadership as a member (which, by definition, every member with differing opinions cannot succeed at) or to switch jobs. For example. let's say you're a prison guard in California (and a member of the CCPOA), but you disagree with your union's lobbying and donations to increase prison sentences for non-violent drug offenders. Ostensibly, this is negotiation you are benefiting from, and fully within the responsibilities of a union. Union dues aren't really your money.

[sykh]

The supermarket analogy I used was solely to point out that unions are not publicly financed. It is the law that union members can get a refund on their portion of dues used for political purposes. I think you may not be aware of that.

[s73v3r_]

"The most relevant one to Janus is the fact that you can't choose which union your dues go to"

This is false; you can choose your workplace based on the union.

[koolba]

> It appears your position is that there is nothing good about public sector unions. Have they done no good?

To society as a whole I'd say the net effect is negative. Note that I'm specific talking about public sector unions and not unions in general. And by net effect I'm referring to the overall effect on States and municipalities, not just the handful of members who receive direct benefit from the unions.

> That's an extreme position.

As a member of public sector union it may be extreme to you but that's your personal opinion. Being on the receiving end of any benefit of said unions would imply that you have biases of your own.

> You say that every step toward their destruction is a good thing. I suppose that means you'd support illegal methods of destruction?

You'd suppose incorrectly and I never suggested anything like that. Cheering the destruction of institutions that (IMHO) are a net negative to our society is neither illegal nor promotes illegal activity.

> I'm in a public sector union. I pay union dues. That money comes from my pay and not taxpayers. My salary is paid for by the state but my dues come from my salary and are not part of my benefits. The union is not taxpayer funded. If you really think this then to the extent that my salary is used to pay for groceries does that make the supermarket partially taxpayer funded?

The primary issue is that there is no competition for the public sector. By definition there is one government for a given region / level and it's in the interests of the public sector unions to ensure that government gets larger and pays them (and their members) more. That's the vicious feedback loop.

> My union influences my workplace rules to the extent that they bargain my working conditions on my behalf. They have negotiators much more knowledgeable about negotiation than I am and they negotiate on my behalf. By law our workplace rules cover everyone whether or not they are in the union.

Eliminating public sector unions doesn't mean that OSHA disappears. And if the pay or benefits are not enough to retain talent vs. the private sector then you're free to go find employment in the private sector. IMHO it's not the government's responsibility to provide you with a job.

> It's reasonable to expect that everyone who benefits from the negotiation help pay for said negotiation.

Again perhaps to you it is but you're also not giving someone the right to negotiate separate terms or avoid the system entirely. I say that right trumps yours.

> Clearly, I'm not going to change your mind on the efficacy of unions; public or not. However, perhaps you will consider that your position is quite extreme. You can find no good?

Again, I can't see any net good in the concept. It's too susceptible to abuse. Google "public sector union bankruptcy" for some fun reading.

> I ask my liberal friends who decry Trump (as I do) can you name some good things he has done. Most can't. They are too extreme to even consider the other side. You sound like an extremist on this issue.

I find it interesting that you've attempted to label me as an extremist three times in a single comment. A difference of opinion, a strong opinion, or a vocal one are never grounds for such crap.

[dragonwriter]

> The primary issue is that there is no competition for the public sector.

Yes, the fact that workers face a monopsony (and one which can and does exempt itself from generally-applicable workplace laws) is why public sector unions are even more critical to avoid abusive employment conditions than private sector unions.

[sykh]

I see you’ve changed your stance from no good to no net good. The former is extreme and that’s the language you used. Now you are using the latter language. That’s not extreme.

It is law that everyone gets the benefit from a union’s collective bargaining. It’s unreaonable to expect people who benefit from the bargaining to not pay for it. In economics it’s known as the free rider problem.

[s73v3r_]

"The very idea of having organizations funded by tax dollars"

They're not. And plenty of other organizations which receive tax dollars (any company that's ever done government contracting, for instance) engage in lobbying as well, and they're a much, much bigger problem.

[mars4rp]

When was the last time Congress did something for the people against corporations?

[jonas21]

The last time the Democratic party had control of congress?

e.g.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_CARD_Act_of_2009

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Afforda...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilly_Ledbetter_Fair_Pay_Act_o...

etc.

[mindslight]

Re #3 - Could you please explain how penalizing people for choosing to not patronize certain corporations fits that criteria? Because that seems like a huge boon to the corporations, basically cementing their positions and outweighing the procedural concessions they traded.

[gowld]

Here's a 2010 data point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Financial_Protection_...

[imglorp]

And a 2018 data point: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-equifax-cfpb/exclusiv...

So it used to be okay but in the new climate, CFPB has been gutted and is now the Corporation Financial Protection Bureau.

[kinsomo]

> When was the last time Congress did something for the people against corporations?

It's certainly not going to do anything if the people assume advocacy is a lost cause and give up without even trying.

[VikingCoder]

Congress did things for people all the time:

Making it marginally easier for those with means to save some money by reducing their taxes... because they took away some essential service from those without means.

Which "helps motivate" the people without means to stop being so lazy. /s

[e40]

A long, long time. Sadly.

[rayiner]

That's a false dichotomy. Corporations are the basic units of the wealth-creation engine that gives Americans among the highest standards of living in the world, not to mention employs almost all of them. Doing what's good for the corporations is usually also what's good for people.

[gamblor956]

Corporations are the basic units of the wealth-creation engine that gives Americans among the highest standards of living in the world, not to mention employs almost all of them. Doing what's good for the corporations is usually also what's good for people.

You're missing the /sarcasm tag. Doing good for corporations has, since Reagan, eviscerated the living standards of the American people.

Plus you're ignorant of how people in this country are actually employed. For example, a number of the wealthiest individuals in this country, and most of the top 5%, actually work for or own partnerships (in the form of LPs, LLPs, or LLCs), none of which are corporate entities. This doesn't include those employed by the government agencies or armed forces at the state or federal or local levels.

And last I checked, every major invention of the past century was funded in whole or in part by the government--there are no major discoveries wholly funded by corporate dollars.

[zentiggr]

Maybe in some fantasy corporation-league version of America, but I see a constant stream of "oh, you lobbyists want concessions for your anonymous sponsors/donors/owners? Sure, always glad to get more votes paid for!"

The only way to keep the general populace from getting trampled as far as they will allow is to push back against all this.

I've said elsewhere, vote out every incumbent Congressperson. Once the current paid members are gone, if the new set appears to be voting by donor status, vote them out too.

Keep voting them out until we find a few decent souls who realize that we the people are serious about being represented, not sold.

I would use campaign contribution reports as a "who should be first out the door" list... individual personal donations of fixed maximum size only, everything else counts against.

[spaginal]

If you want to reduce corporate influence, reduce the size and influence of government.

The more a central authority takes and dictates, the more lobbying and money will be the influence that runs them. When you have a powerbase of politicians that can make or break conpanies, industries, and entire regions with a law or regulation, you will naturally have players interested in that space working for their own interests above all else.

[zentiggr]

Deregulation is the worse case in that sliding variable... an effectual government balances between the various parties, preventing corporate abuse of power at the expense of individuals.

When existing government gets hijacked by power brokers, that's where we the people should step up and say no by voting out the worst offenders. Tha's our check and balance, and where I despair of getting people to understand and care.

[s73v3r_]

That's not going to reduce corporate influence at all. It'll do the opposite.

Power abhors a vacuum. If government cedes power somewhere, who do you think is going to pick it up?

[sbov]

The person you're replying to presented no such false dichotomy. They said when was the last time they sided with the people WHEN they were in opposition, not that they were always in opposition.

[cookiecaper]

It's like asking "When was the last time Congress did something to help feet, instead of shoes?" It's a really weird thing to ask, because like shoes, corporations are a tool used by people. They cannot, therefore, be opposed to anything as such. They're merely mechanisms, tools, in the hands of their principals and agents.

You can suggest that certain uses of these tools are improper and that the agents who effect these uses should be restrained, punished, or otherwise legally addressed, but you don't phrase that as a punishment against the tool -- it is rather a punishment against the agents who manipulated the tool improperly.

Sometimes I wonder if the whole "corporation v people" thing is a propaganda tool intended to misdirect public anger off the robber barons themselves and instead put it onto a formless legal abstraction that can't be held accountable.

[cannonedhamster]

American corporations are tools for people in much the same way that monarchies were tools for people. It pretty much is a tool that's only useful for those with the means to make the most use of it. Small businesses often can't use it to the fullest abilities because to do so requires an army of lawyers and accountants who are able to find every advantage possible. Playing to the rule book is especially advantageous when you get to write the rule book. The other problem is that corporations have more legal rights and power and are considered people in legal terms.

Using another example. Indentured servitude used to be a completely valid legal contract that benefited both sides. The reason it went away was because those writing the contracts started treating it like legal slavery.

The reason people go after corporations is because they are the ones in control of the government and what exactly will going after the people who own the corporations do? They often have private armies, write their own laws, and essentially function as royalty.

[s73v3r_]

"Doing what's good for the corporations is usually also what's good for people."

This is a flat out lie that has been disproven time and time again. More often than not, what's good for the company is bad for everyone else.

[djsumdog]

The essential and influential backers for Congress is industry. Congress is not really responsible or beholden to its replaceable selectorate. I don't think people hold enough influence to hire the lobbying to see this change.

Another comment mentioned how California is considering arbitration in legislation. With their massive engineering and startup culture, I think employees there as a bloc have a tremendous influence for very specific employee rights (also why there is so much legislation against non-competes there as well). That doesn't really exist in the rest of the country.

You can't really just "vote the bums out" when all politics depends on various degrees of corruption, no matter how democratic the country. I mean really, you need more of the people to hold more of the income; therefore less income inequality for all. That way you move more of the replaceables into the influentials.

[kevin_b_er]

The Republican Party supports forced arbitration against the public and they are currently in power.

Here is them overturning attempts to protect the public with courts of law: https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2017/10/25/republic...

[gnicholas]

> congress with the flick of a pen could completely ban arbitration for employee contracts

The President is also involved (or a veto override). Neither seems likely in the near future.

[debacle]

Employees can (and should) band together as well.