The death knell for unions? Supreme Court gets to decide

The death knell for unions? Supreme Court gets to decide | Fox News

An explosive case regarding government employees and the First Amendment that the Supreme Court will hear on Feb. 26 could redefine the relationship between public unions and workers.

Petitioner Mark Janus works at the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services and didn’t like that a certain amount was deducted from his paycheck — he didn’t believe he should be forced to pay union dues or fees just to be allowed to work for the state. He didn’t agree with the 1.3 million-member AFSCME union’s politics, and so believed, under the First Amendment, he couldn’t be forced to contribute.

In his court filing, Janus quotes Thomas Jefferson, who said to “compel a man to furnish contribution of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical.”

Click to expand...

I really don’t care about private sector unions. But I do care about public sector unions who sit at the same bargaining table as the people who depend on them for electoral support.

This is aimed at the black heart California’s one party state which has been made possible by an ocean of public workers dues money landing in the wallets of one party. The case is to determine if non job related dues (I.E. political action) can be extracted from members. They still have the ability to collectively bargain, strike, etc., they just cannot use members dues for partisan politics.

Stay tuned!

chuckiechan said:

But I do care about public sector unions who sit at the same bargaining table as the people who depend on them for electoral support.

Click to expand...

When you work for the government you generally do not really have an alternative employer you can jump to if you don't like the one you have. Police officers, firefighters, can't say **** it and go work for a different police company or firefighting company. The state or city is the only employee available and as a result, it is critical that they have the bargaining power of a union to help them because they are negotiating with someone who controls a monopoly as well.

chuckiechan said:

They still have the ability to collectively bargain, strike, etc., they just cannot use members dues for partisan politics.

Click to expand...

A union, unlike a corporation, allows for the democratic election of leaders. If a member of a union doesn't like the way their dues are being used they have a right to speak up and say something about it. They can vote for different representation, and if worse comes to worse they are allowed to run for election themselves.

The United States of America is itself a union. The United States government compels men to furnish contribution of money for the propagation of opinions which they disbelieve all the time. They're called taxes, and there is nothing sinful or tyrannical about them whatsoever so long as they are laid and collected by a Democratically elected Congress. Our founding fathers didn't hate taxes, they hated taxation without representation. There is no realistic way to furnished organized representation without taxation, and allowing Union members to skip out on their dues would be like allowing American Citizens to choose whether or not they paid taxes. Such an idiotic idea would result in the destruction of our nation, and if labor unions are forced to allow the same thing it will be their undoing as well.

That's why Republicans want to pass this law. It's not about fairness to the workers, it's about destroying unions so that corporate titans can use their power to negotiate workers into slavery. These anti-union **** heads want teachers, police, and firefighters working for minimum wage like a bunch of McDonald's workers, and they can't do it when they have to worry about the police union organizing a strike.

If you don't like Unions getting involved with partisan politics tell the Republican party to stop trying to destroy them.

Unions can be good or bad, but they will always become as corrupt as they are allowed to.

MrWonka said:

When you work for the government you generally do not really have an alternative employer you can jump to if you don't like the one you have. Police officers, firefighters, can't say **** it and go work for a different police company or firefighting company. The state or city is the only employee available and as a result, it is critical that they have the bargaining power of a union to help them because they are negotiating with someone who controls a monopoly as well.

A union, unlike a corporation, allows for the democratic election of leaders. If a member of a union doesn't like the way their dues are being used they have a right to speak up and say something about it. They can vote for different representation, and if worse comes to worse they are allowed to run for election themselves.

(snip)

That's why Republicans want to pass this law. It's not about fairness to the workers, it's about destroying unions so that corporate titans can use their power to negotiate workers into slavery. These anti-union **** heads want teachers, police, and firefighters working for minimum wage like a bunch of McDonald's workers, and they can't do it when they have to worry about the police union organizing a strike.

If you don't like Unions getting involved with partisan politics tell the Republican party to stop trying to destroy them.

Click to expand...

You must work for a union, because your entire post is drivel and fact-free, but is the same things unions constantly say.

The only way financial core dues can be mandated upon anyone is when unions convince employers to agree to a union security clause. No employer anywhere is mandated by law to agree to this clause. It's a permissive subject of bargaining, not a mandatory one. The case in front of the SCOTUS asks the Court to see compulsory contributions mandated on employees by unions and management as a free speech violation. Those are the facts.

This case is about public sector unions, which infest our municipal governments, schools, state governments and public utilities. That doesn't involve "the rich" or "corporations." Invoking this is a simple obfuscation attempt.

The United States government compels men to furnish contribution of money for the propagation of opinions which they disbelieve all the time. They're called taxes, and there is nothing sinful or tyrannical about them whatsoever so long as they are laid and collected by a Democratically elected Congress. Our founding fathers didn't hate taxes, they hated taxation without representation.

Click to expand...

Unions suppress routinely letting their own members vote again whether to recertify or decertify, and consequently less than 10% of union members have ever had the opportunity to vote for or against it. That's not democratic at all. Let's pass the Employee Rights Act.

There is no realistic way to furnished organized representation without taxation, and allowing Union members to skip out on their dues would be like allowing American Citizens to choose whether or not they paid taxes. Such an idiotic idea would result in the destruction of our nation, and if labor unions are forced to allow the same thing it will be their undoing as well.

Click to expand...

The only entity that should have the power to compel payment is government itself, via taxes. Government has taxing and lawmaking power, holds regular re-elections, staffs labor relations agencies and our court system, allows unions to exist in the first place, balances the interests of some against the interests of others, and is ultimately directed by all the people in a jurisdiction who can vote, and do vote regularly in routine re-elections. Unions are not government, do not and should not have de facto taxing power. Unions worried about their finances can just as easily negotiate for members-only contracts. Unions' complaints about "free-riders" are completely bogus, as this is entirely self-induced.

The entire nation can already be Right To Work under current law. All employers have to do is stop agreeing to the Union Security Clause in their contract. This is actually the argument unions are using in Janus v. AFSCME. They are reminding the Court that employers don't even have to agree to this clause in the first place. Unions have zero power to impose coercive dues on employees unilaterally. They require employers to be voluntarily willing to do the union's financial enforcement for it, for free. And amazingly, employers do, constantly, in every state where this practice is still legal (which is nearly off of the states).

chuckiechan said:

The case is to determine if non job related dues (I.E. political action) can be extracted from members.

Click to expand...

PAC dues are already completely voluntary. What this case argues is that all public sector union activity is political, including collective bargaining, because that bargaining establishes policy regarding how government work is done and compensated.

WillyPete said:

Unions can be good or bad, but they will always become as corrupt as they are allowed to.

Click to expand...

This is a reality most don’t understand. They serve a valid function. But they are always subject to going too far.

MrWonka said:

When you work for the government you generally do not really have an alternative employer you can jump to if you don't like the one you have. Police officers, firefighters, can't say **** it and go work for a different police company or firefighting company. The state or city is the only employee available and as a result, it is critical that they have the bargaining power of a union to help them because they are negotiating with someone who controls a monopoly as well.

Click to expand...

Why cant they?

Why shouldn't the taxpayers who are forced to fund their monopoly government have the right to unionize and refuse to pay taxes until their demands are met under the same rubric. Money and labor are completely fungible after all. Time is money and money is time.

What worries me about this case is that one of the Justices will chicken out and be the deciding vote and uphold Abood and rule against Janus. Public employers negotiate participation agreements in state retirement systems (pensions) which involve mandatory payroll deferrals and contributions for public employees. If compulsory dues set up between unions and management are a free speech infringement, how is it that contributions to state pension systems aren't the same type of infringement?

WillyPete said:

Unions can be good or bad, but they will always become as corrupt as they are allowed to.

Click to expand...

I don’t buy that at least where construction unions are concerned. Sure there are rules and BS I don’t agree with but at the end of the day it is the best way to do large projects. In my world they were talent based.

Public employee unions are more of a political power base.

chuckiechan said:

The death knell for unions? Supreme Court gets to decide | Fox News



I really don’t care about private sector unions. But I do care about public sector unions who sit at the same bargaining table as the people who depend on them for electoral support.

This is aimed at the black heart California’s one party state which has been made possible by an ocean of public workers dues money landing in the wallets of one party. The case is to determine if non job related dues (I.E. political action) can be extracted from members. They still have the ability to collectively bargain, strike, etc., they just cannot use members dues for partisan politics.

Stay tuned!

Click to expand...

This is the death knell of the large middle class and the bargaining power of the worker. It may have been missed by most of you that since the beginning of the slow death of the unions, wages in this country have been basically stagnant while the CEO's remuneration has jumped to all time heights. This is because there is no balance between the power of the worker and the power of the company. This is what unions did in the past for the worker, gave them at least some bargaining power. The reason for the death of unions beyond the GOP push, is the fact Americans always want something for nothing. So when they had the option of getting all of what a union provides without paying dues, well they took it eventually killing the goose that laid their golden eggs. Now they complain about low wages, well they had a part in it. Just so you know I was part of a management team that dealt with unions for more than 40 years.

WillyPete said:

Unions can be good or bad, but they will always become as corrupt as they are allowed to.

Click to expand...

blackjack50 said:

This is a reality most don’t understand. They serve a valid function. But they are always subject to going too far.

Click to expand...

Much like government. Or corporations. Or any large group of people in general.

independentusa said:

This is the death knell of the large middle class and the bargaining power of the worker.

Click to expand...

No it isn't. This has nothing to do with the middle class generally nor any supposed "bargaining power of the worker." Put down the union pamphlet and use your own brain.

wages in this country have been basically stagnant while the CEO's remuneration has jumped to all time heights.

Click to expand...

Also not the slightest bit relevant to this actual topic.

This is because there is no balance between the power of the worker and the power of the company.

Click to expand...

This isn't about companies.

The reason for the death of unions beyond the GOP push, is the fact Americans always want something for nothing. So when they had the option of getting all of what a union provides without paying dues, well they took it

Click to expand...

Unions don't have to provide anything to people who won't pay them. They choose to, willingly.

Just so you know I was part of a management team that dealt with unions for more than 40 years.

Click to expand...

Sure doesn't sound like it.

blackjack50 said:

This is a reality most don’t understand. They serve a valid function.

Click to expand...

No they don't.

SirGareth said:

Why cant they?

Why shouldn't the taxpayers who are forced to fund their monopoly government

Click to expand...

All government has natural monopoly power. There is a difference between monopoly power and being an actual monopoly. There is no point characterizing anything this way unless you are an anarchist, which is nuts and not worth diverting the topic to discuss.

have the right to unionize

Click to expand...

No person in this nation has "the right to unionize." There is no such right.

Neomalthusian said:

All government has natural monopoly power. There is a difference between monopoly power and being an actual monopoly. There is no point characterizing anything this way unless you are an anarchist, which is nuts and not worth diverting the topic to discuss.



No person in this nation has "the right to unionize." There is no such right.

Click to expand...

I was not suggesting anarchy, only the fact that government employees should have never been given the right to strike against taxpayers who have no power at all in the bargaining.

SirGareth said:

I was not suggesting anarchy, only the fact that government employees should have never been given the right to strike against taxpayers who have no power at all in the bargaining.

Click to expand...

I agree there should be no government unions for purposes of collective bargaining.

From a legal point of view as it concerns the Janus case though, I really wonder how pensions can be legal if forced dues are illegal. If a legislature wants to pass a law saying we’re simply not going to tolerate these clauses in our bargaining agreements anymore. But the free speech question brought up by Janus is a bit shaky in my opinion.

SirGareth said:

Why cant they?

Why shouldn't the taxpayers who are forced to fund their monopoly government have the right to unionize and refuse to pay taxes until their demands are met under the same rubric. Money and labor are completely fungible after all. Time is money and money is time.

Click to expand...

Then you should have no problem at all with a set time of death.
You get to live disease free, in perfect health till age 25, then an internal clock starts ticking and you have to earn more time to live, or else if the clock hits zero, you're gone.

Of course, some were born with thousands of years already added to their internal clocks by their parents, free of charge.
Too bad, so sad, sucks to be you, I guess.

They did a movie about this idea once.

independentusa said:

This is the death knell of the large middle class and the bargaining power of the worker. It may have been missed by most of you that since the beginning of the slow death of the unions, wages in this country have been basically stagnant while the CEO's remuneration has jumped to all time heights. This is because there is no balance between the power of the worker and the power of the company. This is what unions did in the past for the worker, gave them at least some bargaining power. The reason for the death of unions beyond the GOP push, is the fact Americans always want something for nothing. So when they had the option of getting all of what a union provides without paying dues, well they took it eventually killing the goose that laid their golden eggs. Now they complain about low wages, well they had a part in it. Just so you know I was part of a management team that dealt with unions for more than 40 years.

Click to expand...

For the most part, most all government jobs have similar jobs in the private sector. If the government doesn't pay them enough then they can just go work in the private sector. Therefore, there is no need to unionize in order to steal from taxpayers. Taxpayers should not be held hostage by unions.

blackjack50 said:

This is a reality most don’t understand. They serve a valid function. But they are always subject to going too far.

Click to expand...

As are corporations. As are governments. I like a nice, adversarial tension between unions, corporations, and governments (plutocrats also). I don't trust any of them, so I feel more comfortable when they are watching and checking each other.

independentusa said:

Now they complain about low wages, well they had a part in it.

Click to expand...

The same people complaining about foreigners coming in and stealing their jobs and working for less money are now willing to hand over the very last bit of their bargaining power in the public sector jobs.
Wow, just wow.

From the so called "free speech" angle, I'd like to know specifically WHICH values Mr. Janus disagrees with.
After all, since HIS complaint might determine the future of millions around the country, I think we deserve to know.
To clarify, how is it any different, if time, labor and money are all fungible, to make public sector union dues unconstitutional but to preserve membership dues in a retail purchasing environment, just as an example?

Once you start to make extraction of dues unconstitutional, is there a line drawn somewhere, and if so, what defines that line?
It's an honest question., but remember, we're talking about time, labor, money and speech and all four demand equal consideration in any answer.

Liberals wanted to eschew funding from big banks, corporate monopolies and Wall Street, but one day the Democratic Party decided it was okay to toss the unions overboard, so now they've turned to these entities instead because with the disappearance of unions, so goes their funding.
Kill off all unions altogether, and where do liberals turn? Where does the Democratic Party turn if it suddenly has an attack of conscience and realizes it needs to once again represent the needs and values of working families instead of rich limousine liberal socialites?

Everything is political these days, every damn thing, and I see this move as a last ditch desperate attempt to crowd out liberal access to funding. If we're willing to kill off all campaign funding altogether and make all political campaigns taxpayer funded instead, then okay, maybe it's worth a compromise. But to close off all avenues of funding to worker oriented politics seems a bit dodgy when the opposition has free access to all the corporate cash it can stuff down its pants.

After all, corporations are now using what are essentially "union tactics" AGAINST the worker class, aren't they? Management and corporate owners have adopted the same ideology as labor, only they've flipped it so that the socialistic aspects are now INVERTED and tilted toward the wealthy instead.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

The same people complaining about foreigners coming in and stealing their jobs and working for less money are now willing to hand over the very last bit of their bargaining power in the public sector jobs.

Click to expand...

Public-sector unions don’t provide bargaining power to public employees. If anything, they eliminate bargaining power. If you’re a public employee in a unionized position, you get whatever your union boss and government manager decided you will get, nothing less, nothing more, and you’re not even allowed to discuss something different.

Kill off all unions altogether, and where do liberals turn? Where does the Democratic Party turn if it suddenly has an attack of conscience and realizes it needs to once again represent the needs and values of working families instead of rich limousine liberal socialites?

Click to expand...

Being in bed with union bosses is not representing the needs and values of working-class families. Never has, never will. Unions are primarily dwelling in the public sector.

Union supporters can never stay on the topic, they always have to pivot back to corporations and the rich, even when we’re talking about government unions.

But to close off all avenues of funding to worker oriented politics seems a bit dodgy when the opposition has free access to all the corporate cash it can stuff down its pants.

Click to expand...

We do not need to preserve labor cartels so that Democrats can continue to have a never-ending money stream. Though I respect your unabashed honesty.

Neomalthusian said:

Public-sector unions don’t provide bargaining power to public employees. If anything, they eliminate bargaining power. If you’re a public employee in a unionized position, you get whatever your union boss and government manager decided you will get, nothing less, nothing more, and you’re not even allowed to discuss something different.

Click to expand...

What I got as a public sector employee was far better than what I got in a nearly identical position in a Right to Work state.
And your last line, about not even being allowed to discuss something different, is a bald faced lie.

Neomalthusian said:

Being in bed with union bosses is not representing the needs and values of working-class families. Never has, never will. Unions are primarily dwelling in the public sector.

Click to expand...

Like I should care about your opinion.

Neomalthusian said:

Union supporters can never stay on the topic, they always have to pivot back to corporations and the rich, even when we’re talking about government unions.

Click to expand...

I made a damn good living working in a public sector union, so this is not about class envy, it's about better pay and better conditions. You're deflecting.

Neomalthusian said:

We do not need to preserve labor cartels so that Democrats can continue to have a never-ending money stream. Though I respect your unabashed honesty.

Click to expand...

And you're not the arbiter of what "we need or don't need", especially when you're clearly a subscriber (as evidenced by your name) to a dystopian cult that worships selective demographic cleansing by economic means.
You're dismissed.

independentusa said:

This is the death knell of the large middle class and the bargaining power of the worker. It may have been missed by most of you that since the beginning of the slow death of the unions, wages in this country have been basically stagnant while the CEO's remuneration has jumped to all time heights. This is because there is no balance between the power of the worker and the power of the company. This is what unions did in the past for the worker, gave them at least some bargaining power. The reason for the death of unions beyond the GOP push, is the fact Americans always want something for nothing. So when they had the option of getting all of what a union provides without paying dues, well they took it eventually killing the goose that laid their golden eggs. Now they complain about low wages, well they had a part in it. Just so you know I was part of a management team that dealt with unions for more than 40 years.

Click to expand...

It’s about the public sector unions getting greedy, spoiling it for everyone else. BTW, we don’t know the outcome yet!

Checkerboard Strangler said:

What I got as a public sector employee was far better than what I got in a nearly identical position in a Right to Work state.
And your last line, about not even being allowed to discuss something different, is a bald faced lie.

Click to expand...

No it is not. Union employees are not allowed to negotiate on the side. Their individual bargaining power is precisely zero.

Also, right to work does not cause wages to do anything. Right to work says union security clauses are illegal. That’s it. There’s no mechanism by which right to work causes wages to change.

I made a damn good living working in a public sector union, so this is not about class envy, it's about better pay and better conditions.

Click to expand...

Public sector unions pump rhetoric about the rich and corporations as though that’s who they’re negotiating against. People gullibly nod along.

I don’t care how good of a living you personally made. If anything it’s a testament to the inefficiency of government that unions cause.

And you're not the arbiter of what "we need or don't need"

Click to expand...

I am arguing we don’t need government unions. They are perhaps the worst legal thing in our society.

especially when you're clearly a subscriber (as evidenced by your name) to a dystopian cult that worships selective demographic cleansing by economic means.

Click to expand...

Nutjob comment, that.

Just remember, Right To Work is within every single employer’s grasp already, even if Janus fails. Union security clauses are entirely optional things. Employers can simply say no. And they should. Taxpayers need to know this, so that they can tell the people they hire to negotiate against unions that they can and should refuse this clause.

One way or another, coercive dues, union security clauses, and exclusive representation is going to end.

Neomalthusian said:

No it is not. Union employees are not allowed to negotiate on the side. Their individual bargaining power is precisely zero.

Also, right to work does not cause wages to do anything. Right to work says union security clauses are illegal. That’s it. There’s no mechanism by which right to work causes wages to change.



Public sector unions pump rhetoric about the rich and corporations as though that’s who they’re negotiating against. People gullibly nod along.

I don’t care how good of a living you personally made. If anything it’s a testament to the inefficiency of government that unions cause.



I am arguing we don’t need government unions. They are perhaps the worst legal thing in our society.



Nutjob comment, that.

Just remember, Right To Work is within every single employer’s grasp already, even if Janus fails. Union security clauses are entirely optional things. Employers can simply say no. And they should. Taxpayers need to know this, so that they can tell the people they hire to negotiate against unions that they can and should refuse this clause.

One way or another, coercive dues, union security clauses, and exclusive representation is going to end.

Click to expand...

Then allow for collective bargaining.

There will always be a need for unions, to protect workers from the abuse of employer.