[s73v3r_]

Why is it that conservatives, when discussing any other aspect of a job (pay, working conditions, abuse, etc) will say that "you have a choice; you don't have to take the job," but when it comes to unions, suddenly everyone is forced?

[rayiner]

When it comes to public unions the "unconstitutional conditions" doctrine comes into play. The Supreme Court has long held that the government cannot indirectly infringe free speech rights by imposing conditions on government employment, such as requiring employees to contribute to or join a particular political party. As Rehnquist pointed out, those cases are "indistinguishable" from situations where public employees are required to join particular unions. The public unions in Janus, for example, which are given special status and powers by state law, are nothing more than adjuncts of the Democratic party.

[s73v3r_]

"The public unions in Janus, for example, which are given special status and powers by state law, are nothing more than adjuncts of the Democratic party."

This is absolutely not true in the least. Unions tend to support candidates that will help and support them, just like anyone else who backs any other candidate.

[chimeracoder]

> Why is it that conservatives, when discussing any other aspect of a job (pay, working conditions, abuse, etc) will say that "you have a choice; you don't have to take the job," but when it comes to unions, suddenly everyone is forced?

Why are you asking me? Go find some conservatives and ask them.

[sykh]

OK, so you are not a conservative. The essence of the question remains. Perhaps answering it would be helpful instead of the response you gave.

[chimeracoder]

> OK, so you are not a conservative. The essence of the question remains. Perhaps answering it would be helpful instead of the response you gave.

Perhaps asking someone who has actually made both those statements would be more helpful than asking me.