If the Supreme Court rules against unions, conservatives won’t like what happens next

Neomalthusian · Mar 8, 2018

jet57 said:
Disenfranchised: Deprived of power, marginalized.

Look it up.

Deprived of the right to vote. Approximately 6% of unionized workers have ever had the privilege of voting for or against that representation. If you want to be an apologist for unions, which you clearly do, you should avoid the word "disenfranchised" at all costs, because unions blatantly seek disenfranchisement of the people they represent. They have worked very hard and very successfully at preventing union workers from having the right to periodically vote to recertify or decertify that representation.

And as far as unions go; once again dude, you're either that ignorant or lying.

I have informed you very objectively about Janus v. AFSCME. You're the one stuffing your head into the sand.

The argument against unions in Janus claims the mandatory agency fees are spent politically. Unions are agreeing with that argument!

Naomi Walker, AFSCME, directly states that the effect of a ruling in favor of Janus would be as follows: "The progressive infrastructure in this country, from think tanks to advocacy organizations—which depends on the resources and engagement of workers and their unions—will crumble." How can think tanks and advocacy organizations "crumble" based on dues that are supposedly not used for politics? Easy. It's because the dues are used politically, actually. All union dues are political. She also says, "Janus will make it harder for public sector unions to lead, or even join, fights on social and economic issues." That is also political. She is admitting that unions need dues that are allegedly not spent politically in order to advance political causes.

How is it you still can't understand this? Important people in the American labor lobby are loudly arguing that basic financial core dues which are allegedly only used for representation... are needed by unions in order for them to wage political battles and support political causes.

Here's what I've been saying, which you still can't comprehend: "Sweeping condemnations of “a rigged system,” “rich CEOs,” “anti-union oligarchs,” “corporate special interests,” and “anti-worker extremists” undermine the hair-splitting distinctions union lawyers try to make between political and apolitical spending when defending mandatory fees in court; it’s clear that union leaders believe their activism is inextricably linked to their ability to coerce fees from non-members." - Public-Employee Unions: Only a Lousy Right-Winger Would Call Us Political

jet57 · Mar 8, 2018

Neomalthusian said:
Deprived of the right to vote. Approximately 6% of unionized workers have ever had the privilege of voting for or against that representation. If you want to be an apologist for unions, which you clearly do, you should avoid the word "disenfranchised" at all costs, because unions blatantly seek disenfranchisement of the people they represent. They have worked very hard and very successfully at preventing union workers from having the right to periodically vote to recertify or decertify that representation.

I have informed you very objectively about Janus v. AFSCME. You're the one stuffing your head into the sand.

The argument against unions in Janus claims the mandatory agency fees are spent politically. Unions are agreeing with that argument!

Naomi Walker, AFSCME, directly states that the effect of a ruling in favor of Janus would be as follows: "The progressive infrastructure in this country, from think tanks to advocacy organizations—which depends on the resources and engagement of workers and their unions—will crumble." How can think tanks and advocacy organizations "crumble" based on dues that are supposedly not used for politics? Easy. It's because the dues are used politically, actually. All union dues are political. She also says, "Janus will make it harder for public sector unions to lead, or even join, fights on social and economic issues." That is also political. She is admitting that unions need dues that are allegedly not spent politically in order to advance political causes.

How is it you still can't understand this? Important people in the American labor lobby are loudly arguing that basic financial core dues which are allegedly only used for representation... are needed by unions in order for them to wage political battles and support political causes.

Here's what I've been saying, which you still can't comprehend: "Sweeping condemnations of “a rigged system,” “rich CEOs,” “anti-union oligarchs,” “corporate special interests,” and “anti-worker extremists” undermine the hair-splitting distinctions union lawyers try to make between political and apolitical spending when defending mandatory fees in court; it’s clear that union leaders believe their activism is inextricably linked to their ability to coerce fees from non-members." - Public-Employee Unions: Only a Lousy Right-Winger Would Call Us Political

Approximately 6% of unionized workers have ever had the privilege of voting for or against that representation.

Explain that and then prove it.

Neomalthusian · Mar 8, 2018

jet57 said:
Explain that and then prove it.

I should have specified that this pertains to the private sector, where unions represent 8 million workers, of whom 478,000 voted for union representation at some point in their careers and remain employed by the company at which they voted.

Why aren't there regular re-elections? That's quite essential to any democracy.

James972 · Mar 8, 2018

jet57 said:
People in THIS country still live in sqular and get paid pennies,

even a 2 person household at minimum wage earns $60k a year in America which makes them rich by world standards! Ask starving people in Africa how they'd like to live on $60K/yr in the USA

jet57 · Mar 8, 2018

Neomalthusian said:
I should have specified that this pertains to the private sector, where unions represent 8 million workers, of whom 478,000 voted for union representation at some point in their careers and remain employed by the company at which they voted.

Why aren't there regular re-elections? That's quite essential to any democracy.

They don't have regular elections because there is no need for one. If employees decide that they want to decertify, then that's what they do. And btw, there are 14 million union members today. At labor's peak in this country, there was only 30%. And if people don;t ant to belong to unions, then - work elsewhere.

James972 · Mar 8, 2018

jet57 said:
They don't have regular elections because there is no need for one. If employees decide that they want to decertify, then that's what they do. And btw, there are 14 million union members today. At labor's peak in this country, there was only 30%. And if people don;t ant to belong to unions, then - work elsewhere.

its important to make unions illegal again because they interfere with efficiency of capitalism and thus lower our standard of living. Most recently their high wages and low quality shipped 10 million American jobs offshore! Its beyond stupid to have legal unions in this country.

Neomalthusian · Mar 8, 2018

jet57 said:
They don't have regular elections because there is no need for one.

LOL, classic.

If employees decide that they want to decertify, then that's what they do.

Wow, you make it sound so simple. Is it?

Better get legal help from the National Right To Work Foundation and Legal Defense Fund.

faithful_servant · Mar 8, 2018

Neomalthusian said:
WaPo published this article by Shaun Richman, a union organizing director. So you know the slant from the get-go.

If the Supreme Court rules against unions, conservatives won’t like what happens next

The article goes on to remind us of the early days of unions and how much unrest there was. It references multiple unions competing for members, industry-wide strikes, "rival anarchist and Communist unions," predicts unions will abandon exclusive representation, become "more left wing or crankier," and so on and so forth. But here is the claim on which this entire argumentum ad baculum depends:

"Although Janus vs. AFSCME applies to public-sector unions, this same logic applies..."

That's the thing. No, the same logic does not apply.

The chaos of the early days of unions during world wars did not involve workers being militant against their own government. More than half of the states in this country have Right To Work laws, and we have seen basically nothing remotely like the catastrophizing this union organizer is threatening. This court case would simply cause what's already the law in a majority of states to be the law in all states.

The threatening from this guy about what workers are going to do to the United States Government and its political subdivisions if unions don't get their way on this issue is shameful and should not be tolerated by anyone. He claims "no-strike clauses" will become unenforceable. What do you mean "unenforceable?" They are most definitely enforceable. Do you know why? Because government makes the law, and can make laws that say there will be no strikes.

This argument that all the chaos of the early days of labor unions in American history will come flooding in to the governmental sector ignores the fundamental differences between the private sector of the early 20th century and the powers of government then and now. Government can pass laws that simply say "oh no you don't," and that is the end of it.

Just the normal MO for unions. If you don't get what you want, make threats.

jet57 · Mar 9, 2018

Neomalthusian said:
LOL, classic.

Wow, you make it sound so simple. Is it?

Better get legal help from the National Right To Work Foundation and Legal Defense Fund.

Dude, you have no idea what you're talking about.

:2wave:

Neomalthusian · Mar 9, 2018

jet57 said:
Dude, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Yes I do, and frankly your arguments couldn’t be more ridiculous. You call people “disenfranchised” and then when I inform you how unions fight against the notion of routine reelections you claim there “is no need” for such a thing. That is hilariously ironic. As I said, the only ones trying to disenfranchise anyone are unions.

Most people inherit their unions from some previous group of workers and unions do not want any workers to have rights to reelections even when most of the bargaining has turned over or a minority of the bargaining unit is a full member. The only conceivable sense it makes to say the word disenfranchised in the context of unions is this, the way unions disenfranchise those they represent.

They lie absolutely continuously, and they should be completely illegal in the public sector.

jet57 · Mar 9, 2018

Neomalthusian said:
Yes I do, and frankly your arguments couldn’t be more ridiculous. You call people “disenfranchised” and then when I inform you how unions fight against the notion of routine reelections you claim there “is no need” for such a thing. That is hilariously ironic. As I said, the only ones trying to disenfranchise anyone are unions.

Most people inherit their unions from some previous group of workers and unions do not want any workers to have rights to reelections even when most of the bargaining has turned over or a minority of the bargaining unit is a full member. The only conceivable sense it makes to say the word disenfranchised in the context of unions is this, the way unions disenfranchise those they represent.

They lie absolutely continuously, and they should be completely illegal in the public sector.

No dude, you don't. You just make it up as you go along and have absolutely no concept of the subject.

Sampson Simpson · Mar 9, 2018

The OP whining about bias LOL The most bias anti worker propagandist the internet has to offer

Neomalthusian · Mar 9, 2018

jet57 said:
No dude, you don't. You just make it up as you go along and have absolutely no concept of the subject.

You haven't demonstrated anything I've said is wrong or even formulated any kind of coherent counterargument whatsoever. You've just parroted union boss talking points. I state things that are easily verifiable about Janus and you just parrot the talking points.

Sampson Simpson said:
The OP whining about bias LOL The most bias anti worker propagandist the internet has to offer

Same goes for you. You've added precisely zero content.

It is shameful the way unions and their apologists call literal objective legal facts about them "propaganda," and then turn right around and spout bull**** propaganda like this:

"The wealthy corporate special interests behind this case want to take away our freedom to join together in a union because they simply do not believe that working people should have the same freedoms as they do to negotiate a fair return on our work." - Janus v. AFSCME: The Facts - AFSCME 31

That is blatant, unapologetic propaganda, right there, right from the source. The only propagandists here are unions and their mindless apologists like you. They apparently can't say anything that isn't a lie. Their survival depends on a continuous and uninterrupted stream of lies, and ignoramuses who unquestioningly accept all of those lies.

jet57 · Mar 9, 2018

Neomalthusian said:
You haven't demonstrated anything I've said is wrong or even formulated any kind of coherent counterargument whatsoever. You've just parroted union boss talking points. I state things that are easily verifiable about Janus and you just parrot the talking points.

Same goes for you. You've added precisely zero content.

It is shameful the way unions and their apologists call literal objective legal facts about them "propaganda," and then turn right around and spout bull**** propaganda like this:

"The wealthy corporate special interests behind this case want to take away our freedom to join together in a union because they simply do not believe that working people should have the same freedoms as they do to negotiate a fair return on our work." - Janus v. AFSCME: The Facts - AFSCME 31

That is blatant, unapologetic propaganda, right there, right from the source. The only propagandists here are unions and their mindless apologists like you. They apparently can't say anything that isn't a lie. Their survival depends on a continuous and uninterrupted stream of lies, and ignoramuses who unquestioningly accept all of those lies.

I've refuted everything you've said about unions and how they work. You are simply an anti union person with no knowledge and Janus has big backers over $45 a month in dues. That's all there is to it.

Neomalthusian · Mar 9, 2018

jet57 said:
I've refuted everything you've said about unions and how they work.

Balking and saying I know nothing is not the same as refuting something. You've done the former, not the latter.

You are simply an anti union person

Yes, admittedly and proudly.

with no knowledge

False.

and Janus has big backers over $45 a month in dues.

Not pertinent to the legal issue in question.

Moot · Mar 9, 2018

James972 said:
its important to make unions illegal again because they interfere with efficiency of capitalism and thus lower our standard of living. Most recently their high wages and low quality shipped 10 million American jobs offshore! Its beyond stupid to have legal unions in this country.

Unions helped create the middle class and a higher standard of living in this country, not capitalism.

Bassman · Mar 9, 2018

Kal'Stang said:
Funny...he didn't mention how Unions often threatened people and even physically attacked people...wonder why....

One of the most recent being the Greyhound Driver's Strike of 1990. I believe several were killed in that one.

jet57 · Mar 9, 2018

Neomalthusian said:
Balking and saying I know nothing is not the same as refuting something. You've done the former, not the latter.

Yes, admittedly and proudly.

False.

Not pertinent to the legal issue in question.

Yeah, you have no idea dude.

Neomalthusian · Mar 9, 2018

jet57 said:
Yeah, you have no idea dude.

You have no argument. You've said nothing.

Google "unions -credit" and you will see countless red herring left wing commentaries trying to divert the attention off of the legal issue and turn it into a political one. This only adds credibility to Janus' legal claim.

Janus' claim is agency fees are spent politically, and you can't force someone to fund political speech with which they disagree. The legal defense of unions needs to be: "agency fees are not spent politically." But what unions are blasting across the internet is essentially a confirmation of the opposite: "don't take our forced agency fee clauses away or we'll lose our political influence!"

Why is it that you can't grasp the inherent idiocy in this argument?

Here, I found you some garbage you'll love, and I bet you will think it is pure, unbiased truth. https://www.prwatch.org/

jet57 · Mar 10, 2018

Bassman said:
One of the most recent being the Greyhound Driver's Strike of 1990. I believe several were killed in that one.

A scab ran over a Teamster on the picket line. Same thing happened in 1983: that was a great strike; about 500 guys from two or three locals shut down 7th street in San Francisco. We won that one.

jet57 · Mar 10, 2018

Neomalthusian said:
You have no argument. You've said nothing.

Google "unions -credit" and you will see countless red herring left wing commentaries trying to divert the attention off of the legal issue and turn it into a political one. This only adds credibility to Janus' legal claim.

Janus' claim is agency fees are spent politically, and you can't force someone to fund political speech with which they disagree. The legal defense of unions needs to be: "agency fees are not spent politically." But what unions are blasting across the internet is essentially a confirmation of the opposite: "don't take our forced agency fee clauses away or we'll lose our political influence!"

Why is it that you can't grasp the inherent idiocy in this argument?

Here, I found you some garbage you'll love, and I bet you will think it is pure, unbiased truth. https://www.prwatch.org/

No, it's a guy challenging union dues on a right to work issue, that's all it is.

You have no credible knowledge about any of this so -

:2wave:

wellwisher · Mar 10, 2018

Unions across the country donated $765 million to various organizations over the last four years, and 99 percent of that cash went to liberal-leaning causes.

Labor unions gave $764,952,394 to left-wing special interests between 2012 and 2016, according to the Center for Union Facts. Of the nearly $765 million, 99 percent of union political contributions went to left-wing causes. The Center for Union Facts compiled a comprehensive database of information about labor unions in the United States: outlining union spending, salary information, dues revenue data, and more using data from the U.S. Department of Labor.

Although 99% of union donation money goes to Liberals and Liberal causes, there are more than 1% Republicans in unions, who voice is not being represented by the union dues used to lobby. The left does not wish to lose this advantage. It is using a misinformation campaign designed to make this seem it is about something else. It is always about money and power.

In terms of public sector unions, I am not sure why we have private sector unions. The government spends other people's money, with the tax payer having little say. If these unions contribute 99% to Democrats, public sector unions are a scam created by the Democrats. It is a money laundering scam, where tax payer dollar are used to pay off left wing politicians, to rip off the tax payer for more money, with the tax payer having no say and no union contribution share, to mount a resistance.

The analogy is you are a salesman who has a large expense account. to entertain clients. Instead of being a company man, you then use that budget to undermine your boss, so you can take over his job. Why would your boss want to give you money, designed to help the company, that you will misuse against him? He will cut off your expense account, unless you swear that it will be used for expenses connected to the job, and a not a way to money launder so you can undermine the boss.

The best strategy for unions is to give the Republican and Independent union member their share to donate as they wish. Not all the $Billion is needed to get higher wages. If they go all to not, it may end as not.

GDViking · Mar 10, 2018

OpportunityCost said:
Realistically speaking, what abuses is the government really affecting on their employees? Is there a real function for unions in the public sector? Even FDR didn't believe in public sector unions. That should be a large indicator that the need for collective bargaining is not needed for government employees. Their real purpose in government is to benefit unions, at great expense to tax payers.

FDR did to believe in public unions, the claim he didn't is always backed up by cherry picking from a speech, when reading the whole speech you learn that his point that public unions were good and necessary, however he opposed public union strikes as they interrupted necessary functions of government.

GDViking · Mar 10, 2018

Neomalthusian said:
The rhetoric from labor bosses concerning this case is full of hilarious and disgusting lies.

This article eviscerates: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018...ase-public-employee-unions-undercut-own-case/

““They are not making a legal argument in front of the Supreme Court. They’re making a political attack on all of you,” AFSCME president Lee Saunders said at a February 24 rally. “That’s what this is about. It’s a political attack. They don’t care about the First Amendment. They all care about making more money and having more wealth, at the expense of all of you.”

“In the face of ruthless, dishonest attacks against their freedom to come together in strong unions, working people are drawing the line,” Saunders said in a press release last Monday. “We stand united in fighting a rigged system that rewards the super-wealthy at everyone else’s expense.”

AFSCME paid Saunders a total of $356,224 in 2016, according to the union’s latest annual disclosure available from the U.S. Department of Labor. Saunders is compensated at the expense of Janus and other public employees from whose paychecks AFSCME deducts mandatory “fair share” fees.”

“This case isn’t about Mark Janus — it’s a ruse funded by the Kochs, the Bradleys, the DeVoses, and other anti-union oligarchs to deny working folks the opportunity for a better life,” said American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten, whose 2017 pay from the teachers’ union totaled $492,563.

“The Janus case is nothing but a bald attempt by rich CEOS to use the highest court in the land to cut down our unions,” Richard Trumka, who was paid $315,368 as president of the AFL-CIO last year, said at a rally last weekend in Philadelphia. AFSCME and AFT are two of the AFL-CIO’s largest member unions.

“The corporate special interests behind this case are dead set on eliminating the rights and freedoms of working people to organize, to negotiate collectively and to have any voice in working to better their lives,” National Education Association president Lily Eskelsen Garcia said. “This is a blatant slap in the face of educators, nurses, firefighters, police officers and all public servants who make our communities strong and safe.”

Taking hundreds of dollars per year in mandatory fees from teachers in nearly two dozen states enabled NEA to pay Eskelsen Garcia $348,732 last year and $512,504 the year before that.”

And the mic drop: “With Messenger’s oral arguments and all of the exhibits filed on his behalf, Janus may not have needed anything further to prevail when the Supreme Court issues its decision in his case this spring. But if a worker arguing that AFSCME is an inherently political organization that he shouldn’t be forced to pay wanted to show why he felt that way, he couldn’t ask for much better than the behavior of the union and its left-wing allies last week.”

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You seem very interested in their pay scale. Can you compare it to people in the same positions in private Industries, I suspect you would find they are grossly under compensated.

Neomalthusian · Mar 10, 2018

GDViking said:
You seem very interested in their pay scale. Can you compare it to people in the same positions in private Industries, I suspect you would find they are grossly under compensated.

The author that pointed out their pay was using irony. Their pay derives from dues that are supposed to only be spent on workplace representation, not on politics, so when they do nothing but politically attack rich people generally, it makes them a walking contradiction. That article was artfully done.

Sorry you missed that.

If the Supreme Court rules against unions, conservatives won’t like what happens next

Next we have #12. The Larch