Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 181 posts

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

#161

Post by sykh »

chimeracoder wrote: post #152
mmt wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forgive my ignorance, but is that even possible? If so, could you point to such lawsuits, especially successful ones?

> Forgive my ignorance, but is that even possible? It's not. The suit Janus actually filed is the closest thing to that.

Janus is not about being left out of the bargaining unit. It’s about not being forced to pay for collective bargaining that all the workers benefit from. That they all benefit from it is clear when you compare non collectively bargained workplaces with those that are.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

#162

Post by chimeracoder »

sykh wrote: post #161
chimeracoder wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Forgive my ignorance, but is that even possible? It's not. The suit Janus actually filed is the closest thing to that.

Janus is not about being left out of the bargaining unit. It’s about not being forced to pay for collective bargaining that all the workers benefit from. That they all benefit from it is clear when you compare non collectively bargained workplaces with those that are.

> Janus is not about being left out of the bargaining unit. It’s about not being forced to pay for collective bargaining that all the workers benefit from.

You keep hammering on this claim, except it's clear Janus doesn't believe that he's benefiting from it. It's actually quite easy to find examples - from the very beginning of the labor movement up through today - of labor unions screwing over certain classes of members for political reasons. So it's pretty easy to imagine how Janus would have reason to believe he's being forced to pay for something that has a net negative impact on him.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

#163

Post by sykh »

chimeracoder wrote: post #162
sykh wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Janus is not about being left out of the bargaining unit. It’s about not being forced to pay for collective bargaining that all the workers benefit from. That they all benefit from it is clear when you compare non collectively bargained workplaces with those that are.

> Janus is not about being left out of the bargaining unit. It’s about not being forced to pay for collective bargaining that all the workers benefit from. You keep hammering on this claim, except it's clear Janus doesn't believe that he's benefiting from it. It's actually quite easy to find examples - from the very beginning of the labor movement up through today - of labor unions screwing over certain classes of me…

He is free to believe this. He is free to advocate that his state become a so called right to work state. It’s not the place of the Supreme Court to play the role of the legislature. Janus’ claims to having his free speech impinged are ridiculous. He can’t point to an aspect of free speech that he can’t now do but could if he didn’t help pay for his collectively bargained contract. His claims in this regard are ridiculous.

He’s already entitled to a refund of the portion of union dues (if he decided to join it) that go to political activities. This is the Beck decision in the late 80s.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

#164

Post by mmt »

sykh wrote: post #158
mmt wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This response strikes me as mainly "truth through repeated assertion", without any refutation. > A public employee union is not the government. I'm not suggesting it is, as such. It is, however, made up of the people who operate the "machinery" of government, and it's the government witholding the dues from the paycheck that funds this union, so, again, of Constitutional significance. > There should not be distinctio…

We assert different things. I claim your view that unions circumvent the political process is a bit extreme. Workers should be able to band together to advance their cause without regard to whether or not they are public employees. Working for the government should not necessarily mean that your rights get limited. There are exceptions. Like for the military. Of course this is just my opinion. I can’t claim it’s obje…

If you're claiming mere opinion, then why characterize my position as "extreme" and "unreasonable"?

It's one thing merely to disagree, but those words are another matter. They call for a bit more effort, especially since "reason" is usually objective.

I have made a concerted effort to outline how I come to the conclusion of circumvention of political process and Constitutionality, yet you've not directly responded to any of those explanations, especially not how someone reasonable might reach a less extreme conclusion.

> Workers should be able to band together to advance their cause without regard to whether or not they are public employees.

No disagreement there, but that's never been at issue. What's at issue is money, and money that's being forcibly taken. Alternatively, it's workers being forced to "band together".

What I'm saying is really going on is that they're able to "band together" to influence government appropriations in a way other than the normal political process (without saying normal process if fair/effective or not, since that's another topic).

> Working for the government should not necessarily mean that your rights get limited.

Why not? What happened to the notion of public service? No amount of wishing will ever turn it into the same kind of relationship as an employee has to a private employer.

> There are exceptions. Like for the military.

And why the inconsistency with respect to the military? To me, drawing a bright line there (instead of, say, at either, carrying a gun or "critical" public services) approaches a position of extremity.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

#165

Post by chimeracoder »

sykh wrote: post #163
chimeracoder wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Janus is not about being left out of the bargaining unit. It’s about not being forced to pay for collective bargaining that all the workers benefit from. You keep hammering on this claim, except it's clear Janus doesn't believe that he's benefiting from it. It's actually quite easy to find examples - from the very beginning of the labor movement up through today - of labor unions screwing over certain classes of me…

He is free to believe this. He is free to advocate that his state become a so called right to work state. It’s not the place of the Supreme Court to play the role of the legislature. Janus’ claims to having his free speech impinged are ridiculous. He can’t point to an aspect of free speech that he can’t now do but could if he didn’t help pay for his collectively bargained contract. His claims in this regard are ridic…

> It’s not the place of the Supreme Court to play the role of the legislature. Janus’ claims to having his free speech impinged are ridiculous. He can’t point to an aspect of free speech that he can’t now do but could if he didn’t help pay for his collectively bargained contract.

Actually, it is the role of the judiciary to determine if the legislature has overstepped the bounds of the authority granted to it by Congress, by providing public labor unions with a degree of special authority granted to no other entity. And, as explained elsewhere in this thread by an actual lawyer, there's a pretty solid case that it has.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

#166

Post by jeffdavis »

sykh wrote: post #160
jeffdavis wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a disturbing job requirement for a non-political public sector job.

No one is required to join the union. They are required to help pay for collective bargaining, grievances, contract enforcement etc. Those who are in the union are entitled to a refund of the portion of their dues that go toward political activities. This is all the current law without Janus.

I understand the argument: they're trying to draw a line between ordinary union activity and political speech. But a lot of people don't think such a line is possible.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

#167

Post by sykh »

mmt wrote: post #164
sykh wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We assert different things. I claim your view that unions circumvent the political process is a bit extreme. Workers should be able to band together to advance their cause without regard to whether or not they are public employees. Working for the government should not necessarily mean that your rights get limited. There are exceptions. Like for the military. Of course this is just my opinion. I can’t claim it’s obje…

If you're claiming mere opinion, then why characterize my position as "extreme" and "unreasonable"? It's one thing merely to disagree, but those words are another matter. They call for a bit more effort, especially since "reason" is usually objective. I have made a concerted effort to outline how I come to the conclusion of circumvention of political process and Constitutionality, yet you've not directly responded to…

I claim it’s extreme and unreasonable because it’s outside of the view most people have on the issue. Most people do not see unions co-opting the normal political process. Most people don’t think being a public employee ought to mean giving up rights. The exceptions I mentioned are exceptions in current law, not necessarily exceptions that I support. The law has inconsistencies in it. In the comments one lawyer mentioned that the government can’t censor and this is of course not true. CIA employees have limits on their free speech rights for instance.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

#168

Post by sykh »

chimeracoder wrote: post #165
sykh wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is free to believe this. He is free to advocate that his state become a so called right to work state. It’s not the place of the Supreme Court to play the role of the legislature. Janus’ claims to having his free speech impinged are ridiculous. He can’t point to an aspect of free speech that he can’t now do but could if he didn’t help pay for his collectively bargained contract. His claims in this regard are ridic…

> It’s not the place of the Supreme Court to play the role of the legislature. Janus’ claims to having his free speech impinged are ridiculous. He can’t point to an aspect of free speech that he can’t now do but could if he didn’t help pay for his collectively bargained contract. Actually, it is the role of the judiciary to determine if the legislature has overstepped the bounds of the authority granted to it by Cong…

It’s not the role of the Supreme Court to be the legislature. The suggestion that Janus’ free speech rights are being impinged upon are ridiculous. It’s not a solid case. It’s not even spurious reasoning. It’s absurd to think that Janus' free speech is being impinged.

You can find lawyers who think Brown v Board of Edication was terrible. You can find lawyers who think Obama was not born in the U.S. It’s the argument that matters. Appealing to what one lawyer says is not such a great foundation.

It’s clear the Supreme Court is going to overstep it’s mandate and legislate. They are going to throw out well established case law in favor a flimsy free speech argument. I believe fair share rules apply to all unions in states that don’t have right to work. I’m not sure on this though.

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

#169

Post by mmt »

sykh wrote: post #167
mmt wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're claiming mere opinion, then why characterize my position as "extreme" and "unreasonable"? It's one thing merely to disagree, but those words are another matter. They call for a bit more effort, especially since "reason" is usually objective. I have made a concerted effort to outline how I come to the conclusion of circumvention of political process and Constitutionality, yet you've not directly responded to…

I claim it’s extreme and unreasonable because it’s outside of the view most people have on the issue. Most people do not see unions co-opting the normal political process. Most people don’t think being a public employee ought to mean giving up rights. The exceptions I mentioned are exceptions in current law, not necessarily exceptions that I support. The law has inconsistencies in it. In the comments one lawyer menti…

> I claim it’s extreme and unreasonable because it’s outside of the view most people have on the issue.

I don't think those words mean what you think they mean. The word you're looking for is "unpopular".

> Most people do not see unions co-opting the normal political process.

You keep saying "unions", but I allege that this remains a verbal trick on the part of public employee unions, to lump themselves in with other unions.

I'm sure your statement is true on its face, but I'm not so sure it's true when applied only to public employee unions.

I'm much less sure of its truth when applied specifically to local groups of voters. Try asking some of the ones living in bankrupted municipalities.

> The exceptions I mentioned are exceptions in current law

This makes your argument/opinion very hard to follow, since you string together "should" statements with "is". Is that by design?

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

#170

Post by mmt »

sykh wrote: post #168
chimeracoder wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s not the place of the Supreme Court to play the role of the legislature. Janus’ claims to having his free speech impinged are ridiculous. He can’t point to an aspect of free speech that he can’t now do but could if he didn’t help pay for his collectively bargained contract. Actually, it is the role of the judiciary to determine if the legislature has overstepped the bounds of the authority granted to it by Cong…

It’s not the role of the Supreme Court to be the legislature. The suggestion that Janus’ free speech rights are being impinged upon are ridiculous. It’s not a solid case. It’s not even spurious reasoning. It’s absurd to think that Janus' free speech is being impinged. You can find lawyers who think Brown v Board of Edication was terrible. You can find lawyers who think Obama was not born in the U.S. It’s the argument…

> are ridiculous

> It’s absurd

This isn't the first time you've used words that insult the intellect of someone who holds an opinion you merely disagree with.

You fail to address the specific points that others have made, instead choosing to tar their whole argument as "ridiculous" and "absurd". If it were either of those things, you wouldn't have to say so.

It doesn't further the conversation and strikes me as little more than a re-iteration of previous assertions.

Post reply on HN