81–90 of 181 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm pretty sure Scalia didn't join the majority in this decision.
I'm not sure what you're intending by this comment, but Scalia's been dead now for some time, and his replacement (who is ideologically close to Scalia's) wrote the decision.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not GP but I sure will be. For the curious see [1] and [2] for more info about this case. Public sector unions are nothing but trouble and every step toward their destruction is a good thing. The very idea of having organizations funded by tax dollars that subsequently influence their own regulation, pay rates, benefits, and pensions with those same tax dollars in exchange for votes from their members is ludicrous. I…
Public sector unions are nothing but trouble and every step toward their destruction is a good thing. It appears your position is that there is nothing good about public sector unions. Have they done no good? That's an extreme position. You say that every step toward their destruction is a good thing. I suppose that means you'd support illegal methods of destruction? I'm in a public sector union. I pay union dues. Th…
The most relevant one to Janus is the fact that you can't choose which union your dues go to - but you have a number of choices about how to feed yourself with your dollars. You can go to a restaurant; go to Smart & Final; go to Whole Foods; in general, those dollars are fungible and decisions about how they are spent are made by you, not by the state. In contrast, your only options with a union are to either attempt to influence union leadership as a member (which, by definition, every member with differing opinions cannot succeed at) or to switch jobs. For example. let's say you're a prison guard in California (and a member of the CCPOA), but you disagree with your union's lobbying and donations to increase prison sentences for non-violent drug offenders. Ostensibly, this is negotiation you are benefiting from, and fully within the responsibilities of a union. Union dues aren't really your money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not GP but I sure will be. For the curious see [1] and [2] for more info about this case. Public sector unions are nothing but trouble and every step toward their destruction is a good thing. The very idea of having organizations funded by tax dollars that subsequently influence their own regulation, pay rates, benefits, and pensions with those same tax dollars in exchange for votes from their members is ludicrous. I…
Public sector unions are nothing but trouble and every step toward their destruction is a good thing. It appears your position is that there is nothing good about public sector unions. Have they done no good? That's an extreme position. You say that every step toward their destruction is a good thing. I suppose that means you'd support illegal methods of destruction? I'm in a public sector union. I pay union dues. Th…
To society as a whole I'd say the net effect is negative. Note that I'm specific talking about public sector unions and not unions in general. And by net effect I'm referring to the overall effect on States and municipalities, not just the handful of members who receive direct benefit from the unions.
> That's an extreme position.
As a member of public sector union it may be extreme to you but that's your personal opinion. Being on the receiving end of any benefit of said unions would imply that you have biases of your own.
> You say that every step toward their destruction is a good thing. I suppose that means you'd support illegal methods of destruction?
You'd suppose incorrectly and I never suggested anything like that. Cheering the destruction of institutions that (IMHO) are a net negative to our society is neither illegal nor promotes illegal activity.
> I'm in a public sector union. I pay union dues. That money comes from my pay and not taxpayers. My salary is paid for by the state but my dues come from my salary and are not part of my benefits. The union is not taxpayer funded. If you really think this then to the extent that my salary is used to pay for groceries does that make the supermarket partially taxpayer funded?
The primary issue is that there is no competition for the public sector. By definition there is one government for a given region / level and it's in the interests of the public sector unions to ensure that government gets larger and pays them (and their members) more. That's the vicious feedback loop.
> My union influences my workplace rules to the extent that they bargain my working conditions on my behalf. They have negotiators much more knowledgeable about negotiation than I am and they negotiate on my behalf. By law our workplace rules cover everyone whether or not they are in the union.
Eliminating public sector unions doesn't mean that OSHA disappears. And if the pay or benefits are not enough to retain talent vs. the private sector then you're free to go find employment in the private sector. IMHO it's not the government's responsibility to provide you with a job.
> It's reasonable to expect that everyone who benefits from the negotiation help pay for said negotiation.
Again perhaps to you it is but you're also not giving someone the right to negotiate separate terms or avoid the system entirely. I say that right trumps yours.
> Clearly, I'm not going to change your mind on the efficacy of unions; public or not. However, perhaps you will consider that your position is quite extreme. You can find no good?
Again, I can't see any net good in the concept. It's too susceptible to abuse. Google "public sector union bankruptcy" for some fun reading.
> I ask my liberal friends who decry Trump (as I do) can you name some good things he has done. Most can't. They are too extreme to even consider the other side. You sound like an extremist on this issue.
I find it interesting that you've attempted to label me as an extremist three times in a single comment. A difference of opinion, a strong opinion, or a vocal one are never grounds for such crap.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Public sector unions are nothing but trouble and every step toward their destruction is a good thing. It appears your position is that there is nothing good about public sector unions. Have they done no good? That's an extreme position. You say that every step toward their destruction is a good thing. I suppose that means you'd support illegal methods of destruction? I'm in a public sector union. I pay union dues. Th…
The parent comment was a bit excited, but there are major differences between money you use for groceries and money used for union dues. The most relevant one to Janus is the fact that you can't choose which union your dues go to - but you have a number of choices about how to feed yourself with your dollars. You can go to a restaurant; go to Smart & Final; go to Whole Foods; in general, those dollars are fungible an…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Public sector unions are nothing but trouble and every step toward their destruction is a good thing. It appears your position is that there is nothing good about public sector unions. Have they done no good? That's an extreme position. You say that every step toward their destruction is a good thing. I suppose that means you'd support illegal methods of destruction? I'm in a public sector union. I pay union dues. Th…
> It appears your position is that there is nothing good about public sector unions. Have they done no good? To society as a whole I'd say the net effect is negative. Note that I'm specific talking about public sector unions and not unions in general. And by net effect I'm referring to the overall effect on States and municipalities, not just the handful of members who receive direct benefit from the unions. > That's…
It is law that everyone gets the benefit from a union’s collective bargaining. It’s unreaonable to expect people who benefit from the bargaining to not pay for it. In economics it’s known as the free rider problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Public sector unions are nothing but trouble and every step toward their destruction is a good thing. It appears your position is that there is nothing good about public sector unions. Have they done no good? That's an extreme position. You say that every step toward their destruction is a good thing. I suppose that means you'd support illegal methods of destruction? I'm in a public sector union. I pay union dues. Th…
> It appears your position is that there is nothing good about public sector unions. Have they done no good? To society as a whole I'd say the net effect is negative. Note that I'm specific talking about public sector unions and not unions in general. And by net effect I'm referring to the overall effect on States and municipalities, not just the handful of members who receive direct benefit from the unions. > That's…
Yes, the fact that workers face a monopsony (and one which can and does exempt itself from generally-applicable workplace laws) is why public sector unions are even more critical to avoid abusive employment conditions than private sector unions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems like a particularly weird place to lay charges of activism. The majority decision claims "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." That's either an activist position or an original intent position; it relies on comparing circumstances today to the circumstances Congress is presume…
Law says X. New condition Y shows up. The law does not magically become X' where X' accommodates for Y. If you want X', then pass the law that changes X to X'. Edit: I'm editing this as NH blocked me from replying: > Sure, we agree on that. But Law X will interact with condition Y somehow, so the question is what property of X is preserved when addressing Y. This is a pretty fundamental debate between constitutional…
The classic example of a textualist or original meaning position is a broad view of the Second Amendment. Ignoring the 'militia' issue, Law X says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Condition Y is the development of new types of arms after the amendment was ratified. Textualists and original meaning scholars say that the text of the law should be preserved - the right to keep arms should remain uninfringed. Original intent scholars say that the intended effect on the world should be preserved, and then we have to decide what that is - to keep flintlock weapons legal, to keep military-grade weapons of the day legal, or something else?
My point is that the decision today used original intent reasoning - law X established a right without without imagining Y, so Y should not be supported by X. But the textualist position is to apply the existing text of X to Y whether or not Y was even envisioned.
Gorsuch and Thomas are long-standing textualists, and I'm arguing that they took a basically non-textualist position today for political reasons.
For those living in California, this issue of requiring arbitration contracts in the pre-employment stage is under consideration from the state legislature, and the bill has some heat on it. This bill would prohibit an employer from, as a condition of employment or as a condition of entering into a contractual agreement, prohibiting an employee or independent contractor from disclosing to any person an instance of se…
How do arbitration clauses compare to 'no sue' clauses. By the second I mean contracts that state one party shall not sue the other for a given thing. As far as I know, 'no sue' clauses are unenforceable. It seems to me that arbitration clauses prevent workers from suing their employers which would essentially be a 'no sue' contract. I don't think the courts would miss this, so I am probably wrong here somewhere. Wou…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It appears your position is that there is nothing good about public sector unions. Have they done no good? To society as a whole I'd say the net effect is negative. Note that I'm specific talking about public sector unions and not unions in general. And by net effect I'm referring to the overall effect on States and municipalities, not just the handful of members who receive direct benefit from the unions. > That's…
> The primary issue is that there is no competition for the public sector. Yes, the fact that workers face a monopsony (and one which can and does exempt itself from generally-applicable workplace laws) is why public sector unions are even more critical to avoid abusive employment conditions than private sector unions.
Source? Last I checked the public sector is covered by OSHA.
What rules apply to the private sector that don't apply to the public sector?
[1]: https://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/data_General_Facts/federal-emplo...