Should a union be able to collect agency fees from those who benefit from collective bargaining, but do not wish to be part of the union?
This is a really interesting ethical issue though. If a non-union member benefits from collective bargaining, why should they be able to free ride?
But at the same time, why should they be compelled to pay? Is this just union bashing?
Court's taking it's usual stance, Scalia & Co, Ginsburg & Co.
>Even though you never asked me to.
When it comes to workers though, for things like greater benefits and higher wages, those who don't pay still get these perks.
Excluding people who don't pay from the said perks might hamper chances for bargaining in the first place.
1) If one doesn't like the policies of a Trade Union, they are free to work elsewhere, and even non-Union.
2) When I purchase products from a business, a business can spend my money for whatever political causes they desire, even if I oppose them. I could hire a gardener who then takes his paycheck and delivers it to Hilary Clinton. I disprove the measure, but I cannot tell someone how they spend their money.
Fun fact. The Roberts Court has overthrown more precedents than any other Court. So much for being "Conservative."
>Fun fact. The Roberts Court has overthrown more precedents than any other Court. So much for being "Conservative."
Interesting. I'm still very fascinated by the US courts because here in Aus the justices do a very good job at acting impartially without pushing political agendas.
The best example I can provide: the only lesbian member of the High Court of Australia wrote the majority opinion ruling that calling someone gay is not an insult. (progressives and LGBT at the time were trying to push it as one).
Our justices rule very unpredictably. In jurisprudence here, a "conservative" would, as you say, try to hold precedent, a "progressive" would hold the old law as progressives or activists.
But over there, it seems to fit a much more into your politics than here.
>would hold the old law as progressives or activists.
would hold the old law as no longer applicable
The only fair way seems to be to limit collective bargaining to union members, and non-union members not to benefit.
By that logic, if I go make an Association for White Males and start campaigning for more rights for us, I should be allowed to collect fees from all white males, even if they aren't members of my association, just because they benefit from my work? Absurd.
If you sign a contract with an Association of White Males, and the contract states it can spend money politically, then you can either 1)void the contract or 2) agree to the contract.
>Hi! I'm forming an association for White Males, would you like to join?
>Yes. But I disprove how you spend your money here, so I'm going to get the Courts to nullify your power.
>Hi! We're a Union Shop and we are offering jobs. Would you like to join?
>Yes. But I'm going to get the Courts to nullify this part of the contract, because I don't want you to have that power.
In a free society, what you can't do is force the government to nullify parts of the contract you don't like, and then force people from forming consensual agreements with others. (Hence, Free Association.)
That's the crucial difference. The moment a contract is signed, both parties are granted the rights and responsibilities it entails. The Supreme Court however wants to fuck up Free Association because of political, corrupt, reasons.
Therefore, a Contract is a Contract. Read the Terms and Services, and if it includes "Political Contributions," then be a Good American and Walk away.
But nope. We can't have that. So prepare for pain and suffering. Not that I expect anything different. from the way things are going.
>They signed contracts saying there would be union dues and whatnot
Okay, didn't see that part mentioned anywhere.
Yeah they're retarded, no one held a gun to their head and forced em to sign.
What you CAN, do, however, is specifically void a Contract from being taken by both parties.
>I can't create a contract of Slavery, because neither side is allowed to agree to it.
>But in this case, the court wants people to be able to say yes to the contract, while also voiding the contract if they don't like it.
>This is the crucial difference that nobody apparently has fully caught on to.
Either you make a particular Contract illegal, or you allow a contract to emerge unhindered. This is something that's clearly lopsided and political in nature.
>a union employer
I think this is the key. What is the definition of union employer if there is one? What makes employer an union employer? If employer has 1 union employee and 99 non union employee, is the employer a union employer and therefore the 99 have to start paying some rent to the one?
A trade Union is a separate organization that exists to represent labor in a business. Negotiation, therefore, occurs between the business and the the trade union.
When people want to get hired, however, they go through the trade union, rather then the business. The Trade Union is "responsible" for providing labor to the Business.
Note: Only very large businesses actually need some sort of Trade Union. Most small businesses don't bother with Trade Unions, because they are fair in how they manage people (compared to very large faceless businesses.)
In this case, the business would be the government. Now, if people are uncomfortable with this point, they could lobby to make Public Sector Unions illegal.
But that would violate the right of Free Association. Which we stopped caring about, because it got in the way of money.
The Courts have made this shit very complicated because they want to "outlaw Unions without outlawing Unions."
In case where the employer is public school, is it possible for a teacher to make a non-union contract with the employer?
Or is the contract between the union and the public employer so that it makes it impossible to have such contract?
>Will ending the fees cripple or destroy public-employee unions? Who knows? Will unions become less effective in making labor-management relations harmonious? Who knows? Search the joint appendix in this case—nearly 700 pages of pleadings, docket entries, and opinions—and you won’t encounter even one piece of live testimony from union leaders or state officials. The record contains no testimony or studies by labor economists.
Unions often have perks like free legal advice and Christmas parties. The non union guy doesn't get those. Why should he pay for them? It seems you are the one who wants to ride on the expense of the others. You want the non union workers to pay your union parties.
The Employer designates that all of labor must sign with the Union. The Employer only represents Capital, where-as the Laborer must join with labor.
Again. If the potential employees feels like the Union is a libshit marxist institution, its his right to leave and find work elsewhere. Once upon a time, Unions used to be understood as a Constitutional Right.
If you don't want to work for the Union, then leave. IDK how it is in Finland, but this is how America runs, for better-or-worse.
What's left of Unions in the Red States today are actually Guild Unions. The Steelworkers I talked to represent contractors whom possess minimum quality insurance level. It also prevents people from being fucked over by fraud.
Then again, I'm confused why it matters what you think about Unions. If we had Free Association, then only the relevant parties should concern themselves over the agreement. And why is Business so interested in involving the government in the first place? I thought business understood that government was a 'net-evil?'
In an Ideal America, we would uphold our past, when the world worked
Top kek. A century from now, the Roberts court will be remembered like Tammany Hall.
>An employee, of the same craft in a company, must be represented by the Union.
>It is impossible for someone to sign up to a Unionized workplace, without signing a Union Contract.
>Your situation is fucking impossible. And it's the reverse.
>The guy who DOESN'T pay his dues gets the Christmas Perk and Legal advice. And if the Union tries to stop this, the state will send the police and arrest him.
Lay off the Vodka, Finnbro. The Reindeer need you tomorrow.
>If we had Free Association, then only the relevant parties should concern themselves over the agreement.
Not everyone agrees with your selection of "the relevant parties." Instead of turning principles into religion and guiding phrases into mantras, you might start somewhere later in the development of human societies.
It isn't my selection. It's in our fucking Constitution. At least, that's what the Court Precedent is. But with these "constructionists," who knows what precedent they'll break next?
But seriously, do you REALLY want to talk about the development of Human Societies? You know, as in REFORM?
Or is your mantra just give the richest guy in the room more money?
It's getting harder and harder to bullshit as the years go on. This isn't morning in America. People are going hungry and have no property or assets.
But let's talk about the development of human societies. Wait! I know! Let's talk about the fact that without Trade Unions the middle class has been declining across time. Or is a middle class not part of "development."
Give me a break. If you are right, then act like it. If not, then don't pretend that this "reform" is going to do anything but fuck people's livings up.
Now you get it. And the best part? The Non-Union member can simply refuse to pay dues, and if the Union protests, then the State will favor the Non-Union member. (Hence, the Free-Rider problem.)
Progressives hijacked the law from the 30s onward. Conservatives on the court are more like reactionaries who seek to restore the traditional values of the country than pure burkeans.
>It isn't tradition unless I like it
Even by the Right's own standards, its full of shit, The Right has nothing do with our American history. It just calls itself conservative so that it can lie more effectively.
Just come out and admit your real agenda. Nobody will be surprised. And at least you get to be honest!
You do want to be honest, right anon?
If you know anything about the Constitution al revolutions of the new deal period then youd side with the conservatives. Its impossible to reconcile much of the precedent with the actual text of the Constitution.
And by that logic, if we were faithful to the Constitution, I'd also be able to buy slaves to manage my property.
Your history begins in 1776 and ends in 1865. My history begins in 1776, and goes beyond 1865 up until today (I hate Reagan, but his groups do have points.)
So who are you then to dictate what is tradition, if you fucking renounce millions of our ancestors and what they accomplished?
It's Tough shit for you then, that Teddy Roosevelt saved the Republic from the Oligarchs. I proudly stand by that history, because those were the very folks who saved the nation from some of its darkest days.
Don't like it? Go to the Fuhrer. He outlawed Trade Unions and shot anyone who tried to organize. Of course, things didn't work for the Germans, considering they got BTFO out of America and the Red Russians.
You remind me of a Cafeteria Catholic. You pick and choose all the right-wing clauses to support acting like an asshole. Yet the moment Jesus states that "Money is the root of all evil," you guys turn into agnostic know-nothings
But let's be frank. I'm trying to CONSERVE what good is left in America. You are just taking what we have and shitting on it.
And yes. I do support some changes going forward. But I also support protecting what we used to have. Or at least reminding people what we lost.
We don't rely simply on precedent like the English do. We have a Constitutional text which is at least as important as the precedent.
As regards issues like slavery we amended the Constitution to rid ourselves of it.
We also have Judicial Review. AKA: The very thing that allowed for the Constitutionality of the New Deal.
Are you going to now fucking abolish Marbury vs Madison in the name of tradition, you radical nutjob?
Judicial Review is also going to abolish the public trade unions. Isn't it strange, then, that Judicial Review can ignore the Constitutional text.
You don't hear my badmouthing Judicial Review. Why? Because I have respect for the system (I notice a trend here...)
Of course, in your mind, that counts as "tradition" because it makes a businessman richer. You'd never bitch about Judicial Review in this case.
But if a Businessman breaks a nail, dear fucking god, call the five-alarm fire!
Be honest. Admit the truth. You just want to give the rich more money. It's OK. It's your right to express your opinion. Just admit to us that Wall Street needs more money. Nobody is going to stop you.
Just admit it. Just state
>"We need to abolish Trade Unions, so that more of our hard earned money can go to richer people."
Nobody is stopping you, right-winger. Go ahead. Find the fucking Balls to stand for an honest position.
I have no issue with lower courts following precedent set by the supreme Court or judicial supremecy with regard to law in the federal government. Its essential to keeping the nation in order. However the members of the Supreme Court do have the power to reject precedent if it is made on shakey grounds and it is better for them to use their power to overrule cases and make bad law into good law.
On a side note Marbury v Madison is a case where Marshall resorted to textualism to tell the legislature that it's law which expanded the original jurisdiction was not Constitutional. Its evidence that the text really does matter.
>do have the power to reject precedent if it is made on shakey grounds....
And what is the shakey ground? That Free Associations and Contracts cannot extend to Labor? That the State can force a Union to give Non-Union Members benefits?
What a bullshit non-sequitor. Of course everything you stated is true! Now what is the Shakey Ground? Hmm....
Our nation goes to shit, we blame the left for failing to respect is values, when the right never gave a shit in the first place.
Let's just talk about the issue
>Are we a nation which allows for people to organize among themselves in free association?
>Or can the people organize among themselves if the government specifically allows for it?
>Are we for negative rights (The right to organize as long as the law is obeyed?) Or are we for positive communist dogshit (You can organize, but only if the law lets you.)
I'm ending it here. Go earn your brownie points spinning whatever nonsense you want.
There hasn't been litigation on the specific issue before the court. There no case to overturn.
This is a free speech case because as a condition of employment the government is saying that you have to support certain political speech. It doesn't apply to private sector unions who are protected by the associational rights which override any free speech grievance. The government does not have associational rights.
Unions should be actively formed by the workers if they want to actually represent the workers. I feel that being forced to pay union dues, whether you want to or not, shouldn't be required. What is the argument for both sides constitutionally right now?
>"I signed a labor contract from Chick-Fil-A"
>"I never supported Chick-Fil-A's right to politically campaign against Gay Marriage."
>"Therefore, the State should intervene and ban Chick-Fil-A from making political contributions with MY money."
We can do this all day if we need to. And even with my protesting, it isn't going to change shit. I know this.
But this is just madness. Absolute, total madness.
Yes, however. Public Sector Unions are dead man walking. So let's not pretend that the conclusion hasn't already been reached.
>democratic party lobbies for forced union contributions
>unions thanks democrats by donating lots of money
>workers forced to give money to unions which goes to democratic party
>the is no opt out
>democrats have the ability to tax workers without their consent
>"I don't like this Union"
Work somewhere else.
>"But I want this job."
Then discuss the contract with your Union.
>"Supreme Court plz halp."
Subconsciously, you are aware of the absurdity of this position. That's why you chose a baby as a pic. Because this is an absolutely maddening reasoning to strike down Unions in Court.
>he supports the ability of the democratic party to tax workers
>he thinks workers should have no control over how they spend their money
The government requires that you join the union as a condition of employment. That's what the problem is. You'd have to pay dues before you could ever convince them to give you some sort of unique contract, assuming you ever could. (You can't.)
If anyone falls for your argument, then they would be too stupid to be saved in the first place.
>You'd have to pay dues before you could ever convince them to give you some sort of unique contract, assuming you ever could
That's just flat misinformation....
Go work at a private school. Or change states. America is a large place. I'm sure there is somewhere rational. I can't count the amount of times people kept telling others to go to the Bakkan oil fields
I'm bailing now. Normally, I try not to cause havoc on 4chan. Even with positions I disagree with.
But once in a while, there is a line that's just too much to remain silent. This is one of them.
I spoke up. I warned whoever listened the insanity of this position. Made my case and I'll let others decide.
Now all the public sector unions are going to collapse. Roberts will get what he wants, and they'll be pain all around. And I'll move on with life.
I spoke out, and that's that. The end.
Heh, it's time for Democrats to get their asses bitten by this. I hope they terminate all unions. Smug New England democrats have the balls to call us racists in the south for hating globalism and minorities, while living in their 90% white states. Let's see how they like it.
Heh. Not to undermine >>61001395 , but of course the Democrats won't care. If anything, it'll help Clinton. The liberals will just shrug their shoulders and move on. New York and San Francisco carries the Dems now.
>those who benefit from collective bargaining, but do not wish to be part of the union
this is the argument made but with 0 evidence. If a union collects my money without my consent, and then lobbies for political causes counter to my interests, how would that be to my benefit?
>but you got a 10% pay raise
if what they are providing is so wonderful their members would willingly contribute.
My ass they will. There are still many rank and file dems that are apart of the party due to the ties of the union. New age college liberals maybe, but the type that supports bernie sanders, no. Those fuckers will get steamrolled once they do away with unions, and they'll be out gunned by cheap labor for messicans.
As long as the Unions increase my pay over the dues, Joe American doesn't give a shit.
It's funny, but I actually became "strange" when it turned out I sincerely supported Labor. So these words are very hollow-sounding to a guy who took a peak on the inside.
At least this poster understands what the game is.
no matter your political views, the Supreme Court is inherently a conservative institution (conservative in the sense that its purpose is to uphold the original ideas proposed by the founding fathers). It does not matter if supreme court justices are republican or democrat, they should interpret the constitution in the fashion it always has. Justice Roberts is a traitor and the justices elected by president Obama should hang the highest on the day of the rope
If this thread is going to be about me, then I have no choice but to speak up for myself. I'm more than comfortable letting this archive if it isn't about me.
I don't have to agree with how Unions spend their money. But Unions have the RIGHT to spend their money the way they want.
And the Circles closes again.
>no matter your political views, the Supreme Court is inherently a conservative institution (conservative in the sense that its purpose is to uphold the original ideas proposed by the founding fathers).
It really should, imo. A good Supreme Court should only go against overreach. Even if it means a government program or two that I would like gets lost.
Again. I'm not forced to give anything. Nor am I forced to sign anything.
This is why I lost my shit. It's one thing to express skepticism about tax dollars. It's a whole another thing to get involved between private consensual interests, just to beat the shit out of American Labor.
Holy shit. For the first time, we have a coherent argument. I COULD understand barring Public-Sector Unions from making political donations. But that STILL doesn't give the government the privilege to undermine their Free Association.
IDK who you are, but this is something that I will chew on....right after government contractors also forfeit their right to lobby for tax dollars.
The case will only effect whether or not the government can force people to join unions as a condition of employment. If a bunch of teachers want to unionize they can, but they can't bargain for a law or administrative act that requires that all teachers be a member of their union.
>But over there, it seems to fit a much more into your politics than here.
The process of approving justices became more politicized. It used to be that Presidents would nominate a justice who would sometimes behave unpredictably, but that's changed. Now there's a litmus test in effect that all judges have to pass. No one is going to nominate someone for the court without knowing how they'd rule on key issues, which leads to a partisan court.
It's different though. My mother is a teacher, and union dues are automatically deducted from her paycheck. There's no way to avoid paying dues to the union while still being a teacher in the public school system here.
>but they can't bargain for a law or administrative act that requires that all teachers be a member of their union
It's the reverse. A private contract is signed unless the law prohibits a private contract from being enforced. Or, in this case, the government allows for Free Riders and nullifies an agreement.
Look guys. There is a reason why I am speaking up about this. Not only is the overwhelming truth against the Roberts Court, but I am also aware of this overwhelming truth.
If I keep getting poked, I'm going to defend my positions.
i think the points are related. The public education system exists because of taxpayer money. It is supported by the public, which is why one political party should not be supported mandatorily.
so everyone has a right to free association fairly, but since government jobs belong to the public there really ought not be a need for a union. They are already held in collective by society. In that way unions in government fields are stealing from the public. Government contractors are different because they compete for the contracts with other workers.
Boo fucking hoo. This is America. If you don't like your job, leave. It's been this way for decades, and you don't get to change the rules when it isn't in your favor.
That's the Reaganaut way.
>Government contractors are different because they compete for the contracts with other workers.
Do you really want to open up this can of worms? Especially with a guy like me?
I'm pretty sure the non-voluntary union isn't what America is about. If people want to unionize, more power to them, but I there's no reason why the government should collect dues on their behalf.
The relation between teachers and the school district is not a private contract.
You have no legal protections against the taxing power. The government can take and spend your money however it sees fit. (Obamacare even uses taxation as a means to fine people for nonparticipation.) The check against this is democratic election of officials. If taxes were raised to 90% for everyone the government would be voted out at the next election.
At this point, based on these response, this is just sparring. I'm cool with this, but it wasn't my intent. I made my points and wanted to bow out.
Nobody forced your mother to be a teacher. Get a new job if she doesn't want to be a teacher. Or have her switch states if she doesn't
Heh. That's an interesting case. It's a private-public partnership (hence my comment earlier about lobbying.) For the teachers, it's private, therefore they have free association. For the state, its public, which is why >>61003673
not for a public job which is what the teachers union pertains to in california. all teachers are required to join the union.
she's not even given a choice of union. at least contractor's work for different employers. am i wrong in saying a union is tied more to who pays your checks than what you happen to do for work?
I can't even respond to this point, because I don't want to make shit more ridiculous. So go ahead and make your points here. I definitely won't cross these lines.
My points have been made, however.
I don't think it's understood why I am speaking up about this. If I say nothing, than I am literally the guy from the Hitler Quote.
She could quit, or they could change this blatantly ridiculous rule.
When workers unionize, they pay dues to the union who works on their behalf. Many public sector unions contributed heavily to political campaigns and pushed through laws that made dues mandatory, collected on their behalf by the government. I like unions, but this needs to change. Industrial Workers Union specifically prohibits employers collecting dues.
>Industrial Workers Union
lol. Business Unions are fucking Republicans compared to those guys. IWW wants to outright confiscate property and their leader, Big Bill Haywood, fucking emigrated to the Soviet Union after FDR was elected.
Shit, if we had gone Red, the IWW would've become our version of the Communist Party. Complete with collectivization and party trials.
I'm sorry. As someone who can be considered "Center Left," it caught me off guard.
Mother is a Union GC (general Chair, someone high up). She would also say no.
Some unions are scummy as shit, but unions in general are needed far and wide because Corporations will never be for the worker unless they are a coop.