[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.

[sykh]

A public employee union is not the government. With limited exceptions being a public employee does not mean you forfeit your rights. There should not be distinction between public employee union and private employee unions. If workers come together to bargain as a unit then they should be allowed to do so wether they are public employees or not.

Unions do not circumvent the normal political process. They are not seizing power from voters. Your view appears a bit extreme.

[mmt]

This response strikes me as mainly "truth through repeated assertion", without any refutation.

> A public employee union is not the government.

I'm not suggesting it is, as such. It is, however, made up of the people who operate the "machinery" of government, and it's the government witholding the dues from the paycheck that funds this union, so, again, of Constitutional significance.

> There should not be distinction between public employee union and private employee unions.

And I say there should. There's my assertion :)

> Unions do not circumvent the normal political process. They are not seizing power from voters. Your view appears a bit extreme.

They may be extreme, but that doesn't make them invalid on their face. I don't have a vested interest here, either.

Here's my vision of public employee unions not circumventing the normal political process:

Instead of "negotiating" with the power to strike, they can just go to the voters (and elected representatives) and campaign for their share of the tax dollars (or working conditions or whatever other legislation), just like every other special interest.

[sykh]

We assert different things. I claim your view that unions circumvent the political process is a bit extreme. Workers should be able to band together to advance their cause without regard to whether or not they are public employees. Working for the government should not necessarily mean that your rights get limited. There are exceptions. Like for the military.

Of course this is just my opinion. I can’t claim it’s objectively correct.

[mmt]

If you're claiming mere opinion, then why characterize my position as "extreme" and "unreasonable"?

It's one thing merely to disagree, but those words are another matter. They call for a bit more effort, especially since "reason" is usually objective.

I have made a concerted effort to outline how I come to the conclusion of circumvention of political process and Constitutionality, yet you've not directly responded to any of those explanations, especially not how someone reasonable might reach a less extreme conclusion.

> Workers should be able to band together to advance their cause without regard to whether or not they are public employees.

No disagreement there, but that's never been at issue. What's at issue is money, and money that's being forcibly taken. Alternatively, it's workers being forced to "band together".

What I'm saying is really going on is that they're able to "band together" to influence government appropriations in a way other than the normal political process (without saying normal process if fair/effective or not, since that's another topic).

> Working for the government should not necessarily mean that your rights get limited.

Why not? What happened to the notion of public service? No amount of wishing will ever turn it into the same kind of relationship as an employee has to a private employer.

> There are exceptions. Like for the military.

And why the inconsistency with respect to the military? To me, drawing a bright line there (instead of, say, at either, carrying a gun or "critical" public services) approaches a position of extremity.

[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?

[s73v3r_]

"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."

And also negotiates on his behalf for better working conditions and pay.

At the end of the day, that person wants all the benefits of being in the union (enhanced negotiating power, benefits, etc), without any of the cost.

[chimeracoder]

> And also negotiates on his behalf for better working conditions and pay.

Sounds like he doesn't believe that they do, and would prefer to be left out of the bargaining unit.

> At the end of the day, that person wants all the benefits of being in the union (enhanced negotiating power, benefits, etc), without any of the cost

There's literally no evidence that he wants the union to provide any of that.

[s73v3r_]

"Sounds like he doesn't believe that they do, and would prefer to be left out of the bargaining unit."

If that were true, then he would be suing to be left out of the bargaining unit.

[mmt]

Forgive my ignorance, but is that even possible?

If so, could you point to such lawsuits, especially successful ones?