[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?

[chimeracoder]

> 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?

If your rent is automatically withheld from your paycheck as terms of your employment and given directly to your landlord, then yes, that logic might hold.

However, I'm betting that's not the case.

[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.