[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.

[mmt]

> Why distinguish between public vs. private?

Because one is the government and the other isn't. That's my whole point about it being reasonable that this is a Constitutional issue.

There's also the, arguably separate, issues of incentives and who ultimately pays. In the case of private employers, it is, presumably a powerful few trying to exploit the labor of the many. In the case of government, it's the taxpayer/voter who is ultimately being bargained "against".

What are public employee unions trying to prevent? The exploitation by the many (voters) of the labor of the few? That seems wholly unreasonable to me.

> 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?

(Again, not a union, but a public employee union:)

Because they are, in effect, circumventing the normal political process. By using the power to strike, they're seizing power from the voters.

[chimeracoder]

Janus is about a case in which a person is being forced to pay money out of his paycheck to a group who directly lobbies for policies that he does not support.

> Why shouldn’t a union be political?

By that argument, why shouldn't the government force you to donate money to political advocacy groups that it chooses, whether or not you support the group's agenda?

Heck, what if your employer decided that a portion of your paycheck would be deducted as a mandatory donation to either the Democratic or Republican party, as part of the terms of your employment?

[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.

[chimeracoder]

> People are not forced to join unions.

This is completely false. People absolutely are forced to join unions.

Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of union members - over 90% - never voted in a certification or authorization election. That means that, even if they're members of the union, their membership cannot in se be considered an endorsement of the union by the bargaining unit. Because it's all-but-impossible to successfully decertify a union in practice[0], it's not uncommon to have the majority of employees oppose union membership, but still be compelled into membership.

> 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 within the bargaining unit are usually forced to pay dues whether or not they are members.

[0] The NLRB has the power to overturn the results of decertification, and a very strong incentive to do so. In addition, unions have learned that they can change the definition of the bargaining unit after an election is held in order to invalidate the election retroactively.

[rayiner]

> Since you are making a distinction about public vs. private unions it appears that this is not a constitutional issue.

Private entities can limit free speech all they want; public entities cannot.

[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.

[jeffdavis]

That's a disturbing job requirement for a non-political public sector job.

[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.

[charleslmunger]

I didn't know there was a law about a refund - do you have a link to 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.

[makomk]

In which case you won't get to draw that government salary that would go towards the union dues, and whoever gets the job instead of you has to pay those same government dollars to the union. Hence they are in effect government funded; there's a pool of government dollars that are earmarked for their pockets, and the employee who's nominally paying the union has no actual control over this transfer of funds from government to 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.

[koolba]

> 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.

Source? Last I checked the public sector is covered by OSHA.

What rules apply to the private sector that don't apply to the public sector?

[1]: https://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/data_General_Facts/federal-emplo...

[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.

[chimeracoder]

> It is law that everyone gets the benefit from a union’s collective bargaining.

No, it's not. It's the law that unions must represent anyone whom they claim as part of their bargaining unit.

However, unions have great freedom to define bargaining units how they like. They already take advantage of that ability, in order to invalidate decertification elections (by retroactively choosing a differently-sized unit from the one that was eligible for the election).

The law you are citing exists because unions are authorized to collect dues from all members of a bargaining unit, including those who don't belong to the union. The law ensures that unions don't extract money from non-members while also refusing them representation. Otherwise, they would literally be allowed to charge as much as they want, and people who don't join would simply be paying for the benefits of the people who do.

There is no free-rider problem, because those members are only included in the bargaining unit because unions want to use them to pad their numbers. If they weren't able to collect dues from them, they would simply redefine their units and walk away with the same net revenue from their members.

[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.