It's Game Time For Unions Thanks To Politicized SCOTUS

DaveSchmidt said:

Smedley said:

 I don't think the point is so much with the amount -- even if it's $0.01 per paycheck, why should someone be forced to fund a private organization.
As Cody D. Miller (who's a he not a she) says, "The point is: it's ours to decide how to spend, not a mandatory tax on our earnings." 

I knew I’d get Cody D. Miller wrong. Fixed, and thanks.
The primary answer to your question, I think, would be: Because the organization is obligated to conduct costly work on behalf of that someone. 

 Which means that the Union is not really "a private organization". The Government entity "licenses" the Union to represent the employees.

If the Township of Maplewood licenses "Waste Management, Inc." to pick up garbage from all residents and prevents me from disposing of my garbage other than through that Company does making me pay that Company violate my Right to Free Speech or Right of Association? If so, must the Township allow me to dispose of my garbage myself.

OTOH if the Township itself provides the service through the Dept. of Sanitation can the Township then "license" the Sanitation Workers Union as the sole spokesperson for that Department's employees or must they allow each employee to speak for himself/herself?

FYI... here's an op-ed by Mark Janus himself.

Janus doesn't call himself overpaid, but he wants public sector workers to make a sacrifice to help get Illinois out of its financial disaster.

I would gladly forgo my annual raise because it’s more important to me that the state get its financial house in order. I would happily have my pension converted into a 401(k), instead of piling more obligation onto the bankrupt pension fund. But I haven’t had a choice about either of these, and I have been forced to pay for a private organization that I don’t want to be a member of to negotiate for things I don’t believe in.

Janus is called a "freeloader," but he has a very reasonable vision about what the common good is and wants to sacrifice for that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-i-took-my-case-over-forced-union-dues-to-the-supreme-court/2018/06/30/cbd3168e-7bc9-11e8-aeee-4d04c8ac6158_story.html?utm_term=.54925253ce43

Runner_Guy said:
FYI... here's an op-ed by Mark Janus himself.
Janus doesn't call himself overpaid, but he wants public sector workers to make a sacrifice to help get Illinois out of its financial disaster.

I would gladly forgo my annual raise because it’s more important to me that the state get its financial house in order. I would happily have my pension converted into a 401(k), instead of piling more obligation onto the bankrupt pension fund. But I haven’t had a choice about either of these, and I have been forced to pay for a private organization that I don’t want to be a member of to negotiate for things I don’t believe in.

Janus is called a "freeloader," but he has a very reasonable vision about what the common good is and wants to sacrifice for that.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-i-took-my-case-over-forced-union-dues-to-the-supreme-court/2018/06/30/cbd3168e-7bc9-11e8-aeee-4d04c8ac6158_story.html?utm_term=.54925253ce43

The underfunded pensions have to fail in order for anybody to learn anything.  A lot of people will suffer, but that seems to be how human beings learn.

tjohn said:

   A lot of people will suffer, but that seems to be how human beings learn.

 I am beginning to believe that human beings never learn.

Runner_Guy said:

Janus is called a "freeloader," but he has a very reasonable vision about what the common good is and wants to sacrifice for that.

It’s a vision of weaker unions that cost the state less money, which means some combination of pay freezes, layoffs, and pension cutbacks or privatization for thousands of his fellow workers. Meanwhile, after only a decade of state employment, Mark Janus, 65, is just a couple of years away from retirement, if that. His sacrifice is what? Did he write a check for the amount of his annual raises and send it to the Illinois general fund? He picked a cause, and he saw it through. Let’s not make him out to be free speech’s Gene Debs.

[I clicked his op-ed’s link to the report by the Illinois Policy Institute, whose legal affiliate represented Janus. It didn’t take long to spot a key numerical error, one that wasn’t in the union’s favor. Probably just carelessness, but you know how much I trust sloppy reports.]

DaveSchmidt said:

Runner_Guy said:

Janus is called a "freeloader," but he has a very reasonable vision about what the common good is and wants to sacrifice for that.

It’s a vision of weaker unions that cost the state less money, which means some combination of pay freezes, layoffs, and pension cutbacks or privatization for thousands of his fellow workers. Meanwhile, after only a decade of state employment, Mark Janus, 65, is just a couple of years away from retirement, if that. His sacrifice is what? Did he write a check for the amount of his annual raises and send it to the Illinois general fund? He picked a cause, and he saw it through. Let’s not make him out to be free speech’s Gene Debs.
[I clicked his op-ed’s link to the report by the Illinois Policy Institute, whose legal affiliate represented Janus. It didn’t take long to spot a key numerical error, one that wasn’t in the union’s favor. Probably just carelessness, but you know how much I trust sloppy reports.]

 I haven't read everything Mark Janus has written, but he always says he wants out of the AFSCME because he wants pension reform for Illinois and the AFSCME is adamantly against that.

Janus sounds like he is personally ready to have a lower salary and retirement benefits in order to save Illinois from bankruptcy, but realizes that his doing this individually is pointless, and so his preferred policy stance is for a comprehensive pension, OPEB, salary reform that would affect all public workers.   

Janus is taking an anti-liberal stance regarding public sector unions, but liberals should understand where he is coming from.  Liberals are already free to emit as little carbon as they want, but they realize that that is pointless, so they want everyone to be required to participate in efforts to reduce CO2 output.  Liberals are already free to write checks to their local, state, federal government to fund more expansive services, but they realize it is pointless for them to do so individually, so they want everyone to be required to participate (ie, raise taxes).  Anti-free trade people are already free to pay a premium for an American product, but they realize their own consumer choices would do little, so they want tariffs that will encourage/require all to buy American.

A lot of people defend mandatory agency fees because they say that workers personally benefit from union negotiations.  However, is it so outrageous for a public sector worker to identify with the taxpayers that he or she should be labeled a "freeloader"?  Is it so outrageous for an older public sector worker to support salary & benefit concessions so that there is less of a need of layoffs of younger public sector workers?  

You don't have to agree with Mark Janus, but I think he deserves more respect than the "freeloader" label.

Runner_Guy said:

A lot of people defend mandatory agency fees because they say that workers personally benefit from union negotiations.  However, is it so outrageous for a public sector worker to identify with the taxpayers that he or she should be labeled a "freeloader"?  Is it so outrageous for an older public sector worker to support salary & benefit concessions so that there is less of a need of layoffs of younger public sector workers?  

You don't have to agree with Mark Janus, but I think he deserves more respect than the "freeloader" label.

He picked a cause, and he saw it through. Let’s not make him out to be free speech’s Gene Debs.

(When liberals don’t put money where their mouths are, they’re open to the same challenge as soon as someone turns the discussion to their sacrifice.)

Runner_Guy said:

A lot of people defend mandatory agency fees because they say that workers personally benefit from union negotiations.  However, is it so outrageous for a public sector worker to identify with the taxpayers that he or she should be labeled a "freeloader"?  Is it so outrageous for an older public sector worker to support salary & benefit concessions so that there is less of a need of layoffs of younger public sector workers?  
You don't have to agree with Mark Janus, but I think he deserves more respect than the "freeloader" label.

 A public employee is also a taxpayer. Any such person must balance those roles. If such a citizen sees the level of taxation as a problem he can support tax reform without favoring a lower standard of living for himself and his co-workers. Of course he can also seek employment in the private sector.

A public sector employee who is a Union Member can certainly take a position within his Union in support of concessions so as to avoid layoffs. 

Does a person who advocates passionately in favor of Union Shops and agency fees deserve your respect?

LOST said:

A public sector employee who is a Union Member can certainly take a position within his Union in support of concessions so as to avoid layoffs. 

Janus decided not to be a member, but your point is often overlooked: Unions, at least in my experience, are their members, organized from the bottom up.

Runner_Guy said:

DaveSchmidt said:

Runner_Guy said:

Janus is called a "freeloader," but he has a very reasonable vision about what the common good is and wants to sacrifice for that.

It’s a vision of weaker unions that cost the state less money, which means some combination of pay freezes, layoffs, and pension cutbacks or privatization for thousands of his fellow workers. Meanwhile, after only a decade of state employment, Mark Janus, 65, is just a couple of years away from retirement, if that. His sacrifice is what? Did he write a check for the amount of his annual raises and send it to the Illinois general fund? He picked a cause, and he saw it through. Let’s not make him out to be free speech’s Gene Debs.
[I clicked his op-ed’s link to the report by the Illinois Policy Institute, whose legal affiliate represented Janus. It didn’t take long to spot a key numerical error, one that wasn’t in the union’s favor. Probably just carelessness, but you know how much I trust sloppy reports.]

 I haven't read everything Mark Janus has written, but he always says he wants out of the AFSCME because he wants pension reform for Illinois and the AFSCME is adamantly against that.
Janus sounds like he is personally ready to have a lower salary and retirement benefits in order to save Illinois from bankruptcy, but realizes that his doing this individually is pointless, and so his preferred policy stance is for a comprehensive pension, OPEB, salary reform that would affect all public workers.   
Janus is taking an anti-liberal stance regarding public sector unions, but liberals should understand where he is coming from.  Liberals are already free to emit as little carbon as they want, but they realize that that is pointless, so they want everyone to be required to participate in efforts to reduce CO2 output.  Liberals are already free to write checks to their local, state, federal government to fund more expansive services, but they realize it is pointless for them to do so individually, so they want everyone to be required to participate (ie, raise taxes).  Anti-free trade people are already free to pay a premium for an American product, but they realize their own consumer choices would do little, so they want tariffs that will encourage/require all to buy American.
A lot of people defend mandatory agency fees because they say that workers personally benefit from union negotiations.  However, is it so outrageous for a public sector worker to identify with the taxpayers that he or she should be labeled a "freeloader"?  Is it so outrageous for an older public sector worker to support salary & benefit concessions so that there is less of a need of layoffs of younger public sector workers?  
You don't have to agree with Mark Janus, but I think he deserves more respect than the "freeloader" label.

 Total freeloader.  Now that he's at the tail end of his career, when he's obtained all that the union can get for him before he retires, he seeks to destroy the unions to reduce his tax burden in retirement.  

DaveSchmidt said:

Runner_Guy said:

A lot of people defend mandatory agency fees because they say that workers personally benefit from union negotiations.  However, is it so outrageous for a public sector worker to identify with the taxpayers that he or she should be labeled a "freeloader"?  Is it so outrageous for an older public sector worker to support salary & benefit concessions so that there is less of a need of layoffs of younger public sector workers?  

You don't have to agree with Mark Janus, but I think he deserves more respect than the "freeloader" label.

He picked a cause, and he saw it through. Let’s not make him out to be free speech’s Gene Debs.
(When liberals don’t put money where their mouths are, they’re open to the same challenge as soon as someone turns the discussion to their sacrifice.)

Something I didn't mention previously that I think also might explain why certain public workers don't want to support a union is that they might believe that the union makes their public service less effective.

I think this is especially true in teaching, where tenure often does protect ineffective teachers and prevents a speedy removal from the payroll of teachers who are accused of severe misconduct and who are under legal supervision (meaning in jail or out on bail).  Rebecca Friedrichs, the plaintiff of the Friedrichs v CTA case often cited the CTA's support for strong teacher tenure as one reason she wanted out of the CTA.

It's hard to believe that the average teacher in New York City and Newark is happy about their respective school districts spending millions of dollars a year paying unwanted teachers to just sit in "rubber rooms."  

Runner_Guy said:

Something I didn't mention previously that I think also might explain why certain public workers don't want to support a union is that they might believe that the union makes their public service less effective.

I think this is especially true in teaching, where tenure often does protect ineffective teachers and prevents a speedy removal from the payroll of teachers who are accused of severe misconduct and who are under legal supervision (meaning in jail or out on bail).  Rebecca Friedrichs, the plaintiff of the Friedrichs v CTA case often cited the CTA's support for strong teacher tenure as one reason she wanted out of the CTA.

It's hard to believe that the average teacher in New York City and Newark is happy about their respective school districts spending millions of dollars a year paying unwanted teachers to just sit in "rubber rooms."  

If you’re looking for acknowledgment that union actions can reinforce a system’s flaws, you have it. Count my brother-in-law, a teacher in Chicago, among those who get frustrated.

If your implication is that the average teacher in New York City and Newark doesn’t want to support the union, I’d find it hard to believe.

A recent working paper, by four Ivy League economists, about the effect that unions have on reducing income inequality:

Unions and Inequality Over the Twentieth Century: New Evidence From Survey Data

I only skimmed it; a lot of it is devoted to detailing the methodology, which left me dizzy and resigned to accepting it at face value. But there were some informative nuggets, including nods to public-sector unions, and enough “on the other hand” caveats to earn my respect. 

Here’s a Times essay from the other day about it:

Fresh Proof That Strong Unions Help Reduce Income Inequality

DaveSchmidt said:

Runner_Guy said:

Something I didn't mention previously that I think also might explain why certain public workers don't want to support a union is that they might believe that the union makes their public service less effective.

I think this is especially true in teaching, where tenure often does protect ineffective teachers and prevents a speedy removal from the payroll of teachers who are accused of severe misconduct and who are under legal supervision (meaning in jail or out on bail).  Rebecca Friedrichs, the plaintiff of the Friedrichs v CTA case often cited the CTA's support for strong teacher tenure as one reason she wanted out of the CTA.

It's hard to believe that the average teacher in New York City and Newark is happy about their respective school districts spending millions of dollars a year paying unwanted teachers to just sit in "rubber rooms."  

If you’re looking for acknowledgment that union actions can reinforce a system’s flaws, you have it. Count my brother-in-law, a teacher in Chicago, among those who get frustrated.
If your implication is that the average teacher in New York City and Newark doesn’t want to support the union, I’d find it hard to believe.

 I assume that the average teacher in NYC and Newark does support the union in a general sense, although I think a lot of teachers have reservations about it quite a lot of teachers are apathetic.

Although this is only one survey, it shows that a plurality of teachers even believe that agency fees should not be mandatory.

https://www.educationnext.org/both-teachers-public-back-janus-decision-supreme-court/

wow. it's just remarkable that after decades of bad-mouthing unions, that their support is diminishing, even among members.

will wonders never cease....

========================================

I've been reading this thread with some interest, but mostly it seems that you guys are arguing about angels dancing on a pinhead.

The point of this decision was to screw voter support of Democrats because Republicans hate democracy.

Mission accomplished (along with a bunch of other decisions with the same effect)

The end.

Runner_Guy said:

Although this is only one survey, it shows that a plurality of teachers even believe that agency fees should not be mandatory.
https://www.educationnext.org/both-teachers-public-back-janus-decision-supreme-court/

From the article:

Support for fees ticks up when those surveyed are given arguments in favor and against them.  

So the more someone knows, the more he or she supports fees.

Only kidding. It's a survey without any acknowledgment of the margin of error for its "nationally representative" sample, let alone for a small subset. (Just 0.5 percent of American adults are public school teachers, so if it's true that the survey was representative, only 11 or so teachers were asked.) Add the futility of learning anything worthwhile from snap questions about a complicated topic, and maybe I can be forgiven for not taking Paul Peterson seriously on this one.

drummerboy said:

I've been reading this thread with some interest, but mostly it seems that you guys are arguing about angels dancing on a pinhead.

Who’s arguing?

drummerboy said:
wow. it's just remarkable that after decades of bad-mouthing unions, that their support is diminishing, even among members.
will wonders never cease....
========================================


I've been reading this thread with some interest, but mostly it seems that you guys are arguing about angels dancing on a pinhead.


The point of this decision was to screw voter support of Democrats because Republicans hate democracy.

Mission accomplished (along with a bunch of other decisions with the same effect)

The end.

It’s true that 90%+ of public union money; amounting to hundreds of millions, goes to the Democrat Party. Janus may impair that captive cash flow.

The only source of money for unions is dues from members.

Should all government employees should be forced to make payments to unions that will be transferred to the Democrat party by virtue of holding a government job? 

it's not as though unions were set up to be Democratic Party fund raising outlets.  Democrats receive support from unions because they in turn support unions.  If Republicans weren't so consistently and nearly unanimously anti-union, they would get support from unions when doing so was perceived to be in the interest of members.

Jackson_Fusion said:

Should all government employees should be forced to make payments to unions that will be transferred to the Democrat party by virtue of holding a government job? 

No. That’s why Abood (9-0) stood for 41 years.