Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

Post by s73v3r_ » Mon, May 21, 2018, 10:04 PM UTC

chimeracoder wrote: post #127

sykh wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no distinction between public employee unions and private employee unions. People are not forced to join unions. They are, for the time being, in some states required to pay for fair share dues to cover the costs of collective bargaining, grievances, and other administrative costs. People who join the union can get a refund of the portion of their dues that go to political activities. Since you are making a…

> People are not forced to join unions. This is completely false. People absolutely are forced to join unions. Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of union members - over 90% - never voted in a certification or authorization election. That means that, even if they're members of the union, their membership cannot in se be considered an endorsement of the union by the bargaining unit. Because it's all-but-impossible…

Post by chimeracoder » Mon, May 21, 2018, 10:06 PM UTC

s73v3r_ wrote: post #131

chimeracoder wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 yo…

"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.

Post by s73v3r_ » Mon, May 21, 2018, 10:11 PM UTC

makomk wrote: post #123

fhayde wrote: post #7

From https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-285_q8l1.pdf > It is unlikely that Congress wished to confer a right to class or collective actions in §7, since those procedures were hardly known when the NLRA was adopted in 1935. Kind of funny they use this as justification considering everything else they've upheld that was adopted decades prior to this without knowledge of modern custom or technology. Convenie…

It's not that odd. Section 7 is about the right to form unions and carry out collective bargaining: "Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right…

Post by chimeracoder » Mon, May 21, 2018, 10:13 PM UTC

s73v3r_ wrote: post #135

chimeracoder wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Once I earn the money it is my money and no longer taxpayer money. I fund the union with my money. The union does not receive money apportioned by the government. You can't have it both ways. If it's the employee's money, they have the right to do what they want with it, whether that means giving a portion to a union or keeping it for themselves. If they don't have that legal right, then the money isn't theirs, and…

That's pretty spurious reasoning. Do I not have the right to do what I want with my money because I have to give part of it to my landlord?

Post by sykh » Mon, May 21, 2018, 10:51 PM UTC

mmt wrote: post #139

sykh wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 peo…

> 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/vo…