Janus v. AFSCME

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
Skeeve
Posts: 10184
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 76 times

Janus v. AFSCME

Post by Skeeve » Thu Jun 28, 2018 11:25 am

Point: In Public-Sector Union-Fees Case, SCOTUS Strikes a Blow for Freedom
The suggestion by union leaders and various pundits that the Supreme Court’s decision on Janus v. AFSCME will somehow deny teachers a voice — and will “defund and destroy” the unions — is absurd.

The case addresses an individual’s constitutional protection from coerced speech. It doesn’t deny unions the right to organize, recruit, bargain, strike, or collect dues from willing members. What it does deny is the unions’ right to force individuals who are opposed to their positions and policies to pay into union coffers.
CounterPoint: SCOTUS Deals Blow to Labor Unions in Janus Case
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Tuesday that non-union public-sector workers who are nevertheless represented by a union for bargaining purposes cannot be required to pay union fees
...
This ruling is expected to devastate labor unions, which rely on non-member dues to stay afloat. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, and was joined by Justices Roberts, Thomas, Kennedy, and Gorsuch; Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Kagan dissented. Kagan, writing for the minority, wrote that the decision will have “large scale consequences,” and that “judicial disruption does not get any greater than what the court does today.”
Well, we'll see....
:Popcorn:
Then Skank Of America could start in...

User avatar
WildCat
Posts: 13702
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:53 am
Location: The 33rd Ward, Chicago
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 312 times

Re: Janus v. AFSCME

Post by WildCat » Thu Jun 28, 2018 12:15 pm

A correct decision. ALL public sector union activity is political speech, because even negotiating pay and work rules is a public policy decision. And no unit of government, not even public sector labor unions, should be allowed to compel political speech.
Do you have questions about God?

you sniveling little right-wing nutter - jj

User avatar
RCC: Act II
Posts: 820
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Janus v. AFSCME

Post by RCC: Act II » Thu Jun 28, 2018 4:57 pm

At this point it is better for labor organization to be less institutional anyway. The WV teacher's strike had little of substance to do with the union, a union that already works under a law consistent with this decision.

Labor organization is going to become far more belligerent the more conservatives chip away at laws aimed at protecting workers and unions. Those laws arguably served capital more than labor because a labor war would be very bad for them. Beyond the obvious direct disruption, having relative labor peace is an essential condition for the GOP to recruit working class voters.

It's a stupid decision in the sense that it will take massive hypocrisy for the court to keep this doctrine from creating results they won't like one little bit, but since that is more or less the defining trait of conservatism I'm sure they will manage.

User avatar
WildCat
Posts: 13702
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:53 am
Location: The 33rd Ward, Chicago
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 312 times

Re: Janus v. AFSCME

Post by WildCat » Thu Jun 28, 2018 5:09 pm

RCC: Act II wrote:At this point it is better for labor organization to be less institutional anyway. The WV teacher's strike had little of substance to do with the union, a union that already works under a law consistent with this decision.

Labor organization is going to become far more belligerent the more conservatives chip away at laws aimed at protecting workers and unions. Those laws arguably served capital more than labor because a labor war would be very bad for them. Beyond the obvious direct disruption, having relative labor peace is an essential condition for the GOP to recruit working class voters.

It's a stupid decision in the sense that it will take massive hypocrisy for the court to keep this doctrine from creating results they won't like one little bit, but since that is more or less the defining trait of conservatism I'm sure they will manage.
So you have no legal reasons why the case was decided wrong, you just don't like the political effect of the decision.

The Marxist left judicial philosophy in a nutshell.
Do you have questions about God?

you sniveling little right-wing nutter - jj

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 70350
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 3052 times
Been thanked: 1135 times

Re: Janus v. AFSCME

Post by Abdul Alhazred » Thu Jun 28, 2018 5:58 pm

As a member of a public employee union, I don't have any particular problem with this decision. The Republicans who think this will mean the end on public employee unions need to get a grip.

Most employees in "agency shops" which will now revert to merely being "union shops" will continue to pay voluntarily. The union dues are not irksome and the only objectors are those who are against unions on principle.

Yes it will cramp the style of the union organization above the local level, but it may have a salutary effect on the labor movement as it may motivate the pie cards to devote more effort to organizing.

I'll wait and see before saying more, but I predict that no major upheavals will result from this.
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
RCC: Act II
Posts: 820
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Janus v. AFSCME

Post by RCC: Act II » Thu Jun 28, 2018 6:43 pm

WildCat wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote:At this point it is better for labor organization to be less institutional anyway. The WV teacher's strike had little of substance to do with the union, a union that already works under a law consistent with this decision.

Labor organization is going to become far more belligerent the more conservatives chip away at laws aimed at protecting workers and unions. Those laws arguably served capital more than labor because a labor war would be very bad for them. Beyond the obvious direct disruption, having relative labor peace is an essential condition for the GOP to recruit working class voters.

It's a stupid decision in the sense that it will take massive hypocrisy for the court to keep this doctrine from creating results they won't like one little bit, but since that is more or less the defining trait of conservatism I'm sure they will manage.
So you have no legal reasons why the case was decided wrong, you just don't like the political effect of the decision.

The Marxist left judicial philosophy in a nutshell.
I have plenty of legal reasons. The finding that the speech is "coerced" when the employee has the very real market choice to seek other employment is a simple version. Especially coming from judges that generally sing the praises of the free market in other employment contexts.

Go find a job that uses a different method to resolve disputes over employment conditions. Solved. Next case.

The less simple version is that the decision functionally ignores the distinction between speech within the employment relationship and speech directed towards the public square, instead they focus on the effect of the speech. Which, if treated in the same manner as is interstate commerce... suddenly all workplace regulations are full on constitutional issues.

I mean, are not kneeling football players effecting government funding when the stadium is built in part with government money? Admittedly, that is an absurd extreme, but it is consistent with this reasoning. It makes an employment issue a constitutional one, and all of a sudden players have a first amendment claim to not be coerced into standing for the anthem.

User avatar
RCC: Act II
Posts: 820
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Janus v. AFSCME

Post by RCC: Act II » Thu Jun 28, 2018 7:02 pm

Abdul Alhazred wrote:As a member of a public employee union, I don't have any particular problem with this decision. The Republicans who think this will mean the end on public employee unions need to get a grip.

Most employees in "agency shops" which will now revert to merely being "union shops" will continue to pay voluntarily. The union dues are not irksome and the only objectors are those who are against unions on principle.

Yes it will cramp the style of the union organization above the local level, but it may have a salutary effect on the labor movement as it may motivate the pie cards to devote more effort to organizing.

I'll wait and see before saying more, but I predict that no major upheavals will result from this.
I generally agree. All unions have to do is provide some value. The union guaranteeing representation for members in case of an employment dispute, that sort of thing. Plus there is a possible social stigma issue. It is totally legal to not tip a server, for example.

As a legal matter, a stupid decision. As a political matter, I suspect this will make unions somewhat stronger.

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 33356
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1691 times

Re: Janus v. AFSCME

Post by Grammatron » Thu Jun 28, 2018 7:29 pm

RCC: Act II wrote: Go find a job that uses a different method to resolve disputes over employment conditions. Solved. Next case..
The whole point is that you can't find a different job with the government that uses different methods.

User avatar
RCC: Act II
Posts: 820
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Janus v. AFSCME

Post by RCC: Act II » Thu Jun 28, 2018 7:45 pm

Grammatron wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote: Go find a job that uses a different method to resolve disputes over employment conditions. Solved. Next case..
The whole point is that you can't find a different job with the government that uses different methods.
Why is "with the government" necessary to that sentence? Is there a suggestion that there is some level of a right to work for the government as opposed to a private employer?

To be sure, I'm not 100% sure that is a bad idea, but it seems a violently weird position for the likes of Alito, etc...

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 33356
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1691 times

Re: Janus v. AFSCME

Post by Grammatron » Thu Jun 28, 2018 8:02 pm

RCC: Act II wrote:
Grammatron wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote: Go find a job that uses a different method to resolve disputes over employment conditions. Solved. Next case..
The whole point is that you can't find a different job with the government that uses different methods.
Why is "with the government" necessary to that sentence? Is there a suggestion that there is some level of a right to work for the government as opposed to a private employer?

To be sure, I'm not 100% sure that is a bad idea, but it seems a violently weird position for the likes of Alito, etc...
Because when government does or doesn't do something they have to make that decision by a different set of rules, so this seems consistent within that.

User avatar
RCC: Act II
Posts: 820
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Janus v. AFSCME

Post by RCC: Act II » Thu Jun 28, 2018 9:11 pm

Grammatron wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote:
Grammatron wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote: Go find a job that uses a different method to resolve disputes over employment conditions. Solved. Next case..
The whole point is that you can't find a different job with the government that uses different methods.
Why is "with the government" necessary to that sentence? Is there a suggestion that there is some level of a right to work for the government as opposed to a private employer?

To be sure, I'm not 100% sure that is a bad idea, but it seems a violently weird position for the likes of Alito, etc...
Because when government does or doesn't do something they have to make that decision by a different set of rules, so this seems consistent within that.
If the person doesn't like those rules, they can get a different job. Lots of people pass up government based employment because of this sort of thing.

That line of objection is as I said an oversimplification. The whole speech as part of employment vs, speech directed at the public square is more to the point.

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 33356
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1691 times

Re: Janus v. AFSCME

Post by Grammatron » Thu Jun 28, 2018 9:30 pm

RCC: Act II wrote:
Grammatron wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote:
Grammatron wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote: Go find a job that uses a different method to resolve disputes over employment conditions. Solved. Next case..
The whole point is that you can't find a different job with the government that uses different methods.
Why is "with the government" necessary to that sentence? Is there a suggestion that there is some level of a right to work for the government as opposed to a private employer?

To be sure, I'm not 100% sure that is a bad idea, but it seems a violently weird position for the likes of Alito, etc...
Because when government does or doesn't do something they have to make that decision by a different set of rules, so this seems consistent within that.
If the person doesn't like those rules, they can get a different job. Lots of people pass up government based employment because of this sort of thing.

That line of objection is as I said an oversimplification. The whole speech as part of employment vs, speech directed at the public square is more to the point.
There shouldn't be rules that prohibit you from having access to government on your own behalf once you are employed by the government.

User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 21245
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan
Has thanked: 1366 times
Been thanked: 1155 times

Re: Janus v. AFSCME

Post by Anaxagoras » Thu Jun 28, 2018 11:54 pm

Obligatory

A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

User avatar
RCC: Act II
Posts: 820
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Janus v. AFSCME

Post by RCC: Act II » Fri Jun 29, 2018 1:12 am

Grammatron wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote:
Grammatron wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote:
Grammatron wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote: Go find a job that uses a different method to resolve disputes over employment conditions. Solved. Next case..
The whole point is that you can't find a different job with the government that uses different methods.
Why is "with the government" necessary to that sentence? Is there a suggestion that there is some level of a right to work for the government as opposed to a private employer?

To be sure, I'm not 100% sure that is a bad idea, but it seems a violently weird position for the likes of Alito, etc...
Because when government does or doesn't do something they have to make that decision by a different set of rules, so this seems consistent within that.
If the person doesn't like those rules, they can get a different job. Lots of people pass up government based employment because of this sort of thing.

That line of objection is as I said an oversimplification. The whole speech as part of employment vs, speech directed at the public square is more to the point.
There shouldn't be rules that prohibit you from having access to government on your own behalf once you are employed by the government.
There aren't. I'm not sure what you are getting at.

User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 67113
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom
Has thanked: 3321 times
Been thanked: 2098 times

Re: Janus v. AFSCME

Post by Doctor X » Fri Jun 29, 2018 1:22 am

People can just leave jobs everyday, and find them nearby. . . .

--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out."--Don
DocX: FTW.--sparks
"Doctor X wins again."--Pyrrho
"Never sorry to make a racist Fucktard cry."--His Humble MagNIfIcence
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone."--clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far."--Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.
Shit. That's going to end up in your sig."--Pyrrho
"Try a twelve step program and accept Doctor X as your High Power."--asthmatic camel
"just like Doc X said." --gnome

WS CHAMPIONS X3!!! NBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup! SB CHAMPIONS X5!!!!!
AL East Champs!!

User avatar
WildCat
Posts: 13702
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:53 am
Location: The 33rd Ward, Chicago
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 312 times

Re: Janus v. AFSCME

Post by WildCat » Fri Jun 29, 2018 2:08 am

RCC: Act II wrote:I have plenty of legal reasons. The finding that the speech is "coerced" when the employee has the very real market choice to seek other employment is a simple version. Especially coming from judges that generally sing the praises of the free market in other employment contexts.
Not at all applicable when the employer is the government. The government cannot demand political speech as a condition of employment.
Do you have questions about God?

you sniveling little right-wing nutter - jj

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 33356
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1691 times

Re: Janus v. AFSCME

Post by Grammatron » Fri Jun 29, 2018 2:36 am

RCC: Act II wrote: There aren't. I'm not sure what you are getting at.
Negotiating one's wages and benefits.

User avatar
RCC: Act II
Posts: 820
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Janus v. AFSCME

Post by RCC: Act II » Fri Jun 29, 2018 2:54 am

Grammatron wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote: There aren't. I'm not sure what you are getting at.
Negotiating one's wages and benefits.
Still a management issue. Does a salary scale totally dependent on objective criteria also violate the right to free speech then? It also prevents you from negotiating.

User avatar
WildCat
Posts: 13702
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:53 am
Location: The 33rd Ward, Chicago
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 312 times

Re: Janus v. AFSCME

Post by WildCat » Fri Jun 29, 2018 2:56 am

RCC: Act II wrote:
Grammatron wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote: There aren't. I'm not sure what you are getting at.
Negotiating one's wages and benefits.
Still a management issue. Does a salary scale totally dependent on objective criteria also violate the right to free speech then? It also prevents you from negotiating.
Is the salary scale of government employees a public policy issue?
Do you have questions about God?

you sniveling little right-wing nutter - jj

User avatar
RCC: Act II
Posts: 820
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Janus v. AFSCME

Post by RCC: Act II » Fri Jun 29, 2018 2:58 am

WildCat wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote:I have plenty of legal reasons. The finding that the speech is "coerced" when the employee has the very real market choice to seek other employment is a simple version. Especially coming from judges that generally sing the praises of the free market in other employment contexts.
Not at all applicable when the employer is the government. The government cannot demand political speech as a condition of employment.
Sure they can. Can someone hired to help promote a government program instead use their position to remain silent about it or criticize it and expect constitutional protection?