[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?

[sykh]

You could Google it. Here’s a link:

https://www.unionfacts.com/article/political-money/

[charleslmunger]

The case you linked refers to Beck, which is a ruling on the NRLA which as far as I can tell does not apply to the public sector.

Wikipedia points to Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association, which has:

"Non-chargeable expenses include: Lobbying, electoral, or other political activities not directly related to contract bargaining or implementation;[144] political or public activities aimed at winning a greater budget for the collective bargaining unit;[140] litigation or publications reporting on litigation that does not concern directly concern the bargaining unit;[145] and public relations efforts (including informational picketing, media purchases, signs, posters, and buttons) designed to enhance public respect for the workers' profession"

I'm not a lawyer and I'm not sure what the difference is between this upcoming case and that one. But it sounds like the supreme Court has already ruled that lots of the behavior I find objectionable is not chargeable as an agency fee to nonmembers.

[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.

[sykh]

Once I earn the money it is my money and no longer taxpayer money. I fund the union with my money. The union does not receive money apportioned by the government.

Is the landlord I rent from supported by taxpayer money because I’m a public employee that rents from him?

[chimeracoder]

> Once I earn the money it is my money and no longer taxpayer money. I fund the union with my money. The union does not receive money apportioned by the government.

You can't have it both ways. If it's the employee's money, they have the right to do what they want with it, whether that means giving a portion to a union or keeping it for themselves.

If they don't have that legal right, then the money isn't theirs, and it's coming from taxpayers, because it's paid by the government.

[sykh]

I’m not having anything two ways. Here are two statements which are not contradictory.

1. Unions are not government funded. 2. Those who benefit from collective bargaining ought to help pay for it.

[s73v3r_]

That's pretty spurious reasoning. Do I not have the right to do what I want with my money because I have to give part of it to my landlord?

[s73v3r_]

That's like saying Cox is "government funded", as any government employee that has Cox as their cable provider is going to be paying that bill with money they got from the government.

[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...

[dragonwriter]

> Last I checked the public sector is covered by OSHA.

Federal agencies can apply alternate standards if they decide general OSHA rules don't work for them; while this requires DoL sign-off, IIRC, this option is not available to individual private employers.

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

Aside from the above, another example is that a variety of regulations under FLSA, including standards for exemption, do not apply to federal employees when adopted by the Labor Department; OPM sometimes adopts conforming regulations that apply similar standards to the federal civilian workforce and sometimes does not.

Similarly, states often limit the applicability of their own labor laws to themselves, though they are of course bound by federal laws to the extent that they aren't either specifically exempted or Constitutionally immune.

[jalical]

Covered by OSHA But with exemptions in place for adverse conditions (oversees).

And all Workman's compensation claims go through a government agency (Department of Labor).

With zero ability to sue or claim damages like you would have in other businesses.

If you get hurt via some hilariously OSHA-illegal workplace incident, the most you can hope for is a schedule reward of some number of your work weeks plus forced retirement, and most people have to fight to get that using their own resources and legal help. All the while being treated as a criminal or a draft dodger.

So in the end, an OSHA-unsafe environment has no repercussions to governmental organizations ($$ as normal or firing).

[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.

[sykh]

the collectively bargained agreement with an employer affects everyone under the scope of that agreement. This includes people who are not members of the union. The contract is for everyone within a bargaining unit. For instance, at my college every instructor's working conditions are set forth in the master contract. This includes those not in the union. The union can’t make a contract only for those instructors who are part of the union.

The free rider problem occurs once so called right to work gets enacted. There is no free rider no because everyone pays fair share (in states that don’t have right to work laws).

[chimeracoder]

> the collectively bargained agreement with an employer affects everyone under the scope of that agreement. This includes people who are not members of the union. The contract is for everyone within a bargaining unit.

Only because unions choose only to make contracts that cover non-members as part of their bargaining unit.

> The free rider problem occurs once so called right to work gets enacted. There is no free rider no because everyone pays fair share

There is no free-rider problem. Unions are free to create contracts that don't consider non-members to be part of the bargaining unit. That court ruling is 80 years old and completely uncontroversial and uncontested. Unions have systematically refused to do that, because they'd rather take an "all or nothing" stance.

It makes for a great political stance to pretend, "oh, we have to charge these other people fees because otherwise we'd be giving them representation for free", but in reality, they're the ones who are refusing to do business any other way. There is no free-rider problem, and there never has been.