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

Neomalthusian · Mar 7, 2018

jet57 said:
Prove to me that - a business agent - makes that much money.

1) I was talking about Lee Saunders, Richard Trumka, Lily Garcia, Randi Weingarten, and Mary Kay Henry. I don't know why you're talking about "a business agent" or why you think I need to "prove" to you what "a business agent" makes. The salaries of those people I named are easily accessible with an internet search. I linked an article earlier that disclosed that information in its narrative.

They don't undermine any case at all except the anti union one.

You really are not grasping the basics here. The argument against these dues is that they're political. The union response is affirming exactly that. They are outright claiming that to be deprived of these coercive dues which are supposedly not supposed to be political, that they would be losing political influence and that the ruling would be a "gift to the GOP." That doesn't even just undermine their own supposed position, it directly agrees with the the plaintiff.

Union due are not free speech

No one claimed "union due (sic) are free speech." That isn't anyone's argument.

they are money due for the maintenance of representation.

They are not merely for whatever benign thing you wish to say they are for. They are for influencing political decision-making. The AFSCME counsel admitted as much in front of the Supreme Court Justices.

jet57 · Mar 7, 2018

Neomalthusian said:
1) I was talking about Lee Saunders, Richard Trumka, Lily Garcia, Randi Weingarten, and Mary Kay Henry. I don't know why you're talking about "a business agent" or why you think I need to "prove" to you what "a business agent" makes. The salaries of those people I named are easily accessible with an internet search. I linked an article earlier that disclosed that information in its narrative.

You really are not grasping the basics here. The argument against these dues is that they're political. The union response is affirming exactly that. They are outright claiming that to be deprived of these coercive dues which are supposedly not supposed to be political, that they would be losing political influence and that the ruling would be a "gift to the GOP." That doesn't even just undermine their own supposed position, it directly agrees with the the plaintiff.

No one claimed "union due (sic) are free speech." That isn't anyone's argument.

They are not merely for whatever benign thing you wish to say they are for. They are for influencing political decision-making. The AFSCME counsel admitted as much in front of the Supreme Court Justices.

You were entering the “union boss” into it, of which there is no such thing and we whittled it down to “business agents”. None of the people you mentioned make $600k a year. The people you are talking about are the duly elected heads of national labor unions and their salaries are based on membership and income. Each member is covered under a per capita cost that is a percentage of every monthly dues fee that goes to the national office of national support and staff: court costs alone are staggering and must be paid. Overhead is another thing etc etc.

As for politics; you’re not grasping it at all: politics have become the fighting ground as politics represents both sides. “Dues” are not political, but are made such in right to work environments because of the rights of representation to dues paying members. There is an old Italian saying; ‘If you don’t work, you don’t eat’… so it becomes a matter of ‘shop politics’ for representation of those who don’t work – by paying their dues.

Janus is making fallacious argument that dues are political/ free speech, when they are not. They are fees for service and group maintenance; the group being the entire local. So Janus is weaseling, he’s a gold brick. This is a union busting case wholly designed to pull the financial rug out from underneath a union local and thereby bankrupt it. That’s what right to work laws are solely designed to do and this coming decision could bring that about on a nationwide level; it’s happened before in labor history but people always wind up coming back to organized labor because it works.

Political communications for state, local or national campaigns is part of what unions have been doing since they started putting up flyers on tree trucks of boards on the streets. The Teamsters, of which I belonged to never liked politics, nor did we like the AFL-CIO. It was always about me and thee, and outside influences were just a distraction. So you’re trying to conflate politics here.

wellwisher · Mar 7, 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.

Unions made/make sense in the private sector. If a business owner is driven by greed, he may short change his employees. Unions never made sense in the public sector since the government is not a greedy business, since is spends other people's money and not its own. Government also has al types of rules and procedures for the work place already in affect, that are more liberal than the private sector.

The real problem being addresses is public sector unions have become a way for the left to money launder tax payer money and give it to leftist politicians. This is not chump change but is a lot of tax payer money laundering. For example, the NRA spent $57million in 2016 politics, while unions spend $1.7 Billion. Recently, wasn't the NRA consider evil, with its 1/40 the amount of union spending on lobbying?

Relative to public sector unions, the goal of the union is more tax payer money being spent on union employee wages and benefits. The way the money laundering works is a percent of this future earnings, will become a donation to Democrat politicians, who will then push for the increase. The math adds up as all the tax payers, paying unions, to pay Democrats. The doom and gloom of the democrat party is real but is it connected this money laundering drying up.

It does not matter, if I pay up the politicians up front, from my savings, and then I am reimbursed with a wage windfall to build my savings back up. It is still tax payer money being laundered.

The Supreme Court case is really connected to a Republican who has to pay union dues that will go to Democrats candidates who will lobby for higher wages. The plaintiff does benefit by the wager increase but he does not think he should have to pay only Democrats a kickback. He should be able to give his share of the money laundering to the Republicans. The Democrats do not wish to share the money laundering scam. The result may be nobody will be able to play.

Neomalthusian · Mar 7, 2018

jet57 said:
You were entering the “union boss” into it, of which there is no such thing and we whittled it down to “business agents”.

"We" did nothing of the sort. I named the specific people I was talking about. I don't care what silly alternative label you want applied to them.

None of the people you mentioned make $600k a year.

What they have been paid annually over the past couple of years ranges from the $300,000s per year up into the $500,000s per year.

As for politics; you’re not grasping it at all: politics have become the fighting ground as politics represents both sides. “Dues” are not political, but are made such in right to work environments because of the rights of representation to dues paying members.

This is not a coherent interpretation of what Janus is claiming. Janus is claiming mandatory dues (agency fees, or financial core dues) are spent politically. The fact that these union bosses and their allies in the media come right out and say that to deprive unions of these dues harms them politically confirms the Janus argument.

Janus is making fallacious argument that dues are political/ free speech, when they are not.

All dues are spent influencing politics. You declaring "they are not" is the AFSCME argument in front of the SCOTUS right now, and it is weak.

They are fees for service and group maintenance; the group being the entire local.

So unions argue. What we're watching happen though is unions as entire organizations working furiously to influence politics. They are going so far as to admitting that these dues (which you allege are not spent trying to influence politics) would decrease their ability to influence politics if they couldn't continue to enjoy security clauses in their contracts in 23 states. They are cannibalizing themselves with this argument.

This is a union busting case wholly designed to pull the financial rug out from underneath a union local and thereby bankrupt it.

Typical union catastrophizing. Are unions all bankrupt in the 27 states that are already Right To Work?

That’s what right to work laws are solely designed to do

If that were true, it would mean the mission has failed, as Right To Work laws have not done what you claim, and you should not be so worried about them because they haven't done what you say they were designed to do.

and this coming decision could bring that about on a nationwide level

It would make national a rule that is already in effect in a majority of the states, correct.

it’s happened before in labor history but people always wind up coming back to organized labor because it works.

Actually it doesn't. It has destroyed itself in the private sector, membership cannot sustain itself for long when the actual people do not actually want any part of it, unions won't even let their bargaining units vote to recertify, even when a minority have ever had the privilege of doing so, union-managed pensions are commonly complete bankrupt failures, and numerous states where unions have had the most political influence for the longest amount of time have experienced or are currently experiencing inability to fund their pensions and by extension their state government (Illinois, New Jersey, Connecticut, Michigan). It doesn't "work" in general. It only "works" to squeeze more money out of taxpayers, for a while. It is a slowly closing chapter in American history. We will still hear about union-fueled disorganization and unrest in developing countries for the next couple generations, but it is time to put unions out to pasture and start looking at more modern political solutions to our problems.

Neomalthusian · Mar 7, 2018

wellwisher said:
Unions made/make sense in the private sector. If a business owner is driven by greed, he may short change his employees.

I'd say the only thing that "makes sense" about unions in the private sector is some of their standard claims about some ruthless cost-cutters (management, directing boards, aggressive growth-focused shareholders) that don't care about staff development and retention. This can make working for those companies unpleasant and unrewarding, but that leads to poor performance and low retention, which has its own drawbacks to the company.

Unions never made sense in the public sector since the government is not a greedy business, since is spends other people's money and not its own. Government also has al types of rules and procedures for the work place already in affect, that are more liberal than the private sector.

Right, and in fact a lot of union bargaining agreements that I've read try to take credit for protections the government (not the union) actually establishes universally. Example, a union will word an overtime rule that is actually established by FLSA as if the union were the one requiring it. If the employer says "let's omit that language since it's required already by federal law," they will adamantly refuse, and allege it's because "what if the law changes, we will still want that protection!" But the real reason is they want be seen in the eyes of members as the reason that protection exists.

The real problem being addresses is public sector unions have become a way for the left to money launder tax payer money and give it to leftist politicians. This is not chump change but is a lot of tax payer money laundering. For example, the NRA spent $57million in 2016 politics, while unions spend $1.7 Billion. Recently, wasn't the NRA consider evil, with its 1/40 the amount of union spending on lobbying?

The NRA should most definitely be likened to unions, given the way it influences politics. And in fact, if it were legal for the NRA to convince the state legislatures in Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, and other deep red states to pass a law that allows the NRA to forcibly collect money from state residents who own any kind of gun, alleging that the hard work the NRA does benefits each one of them and protects their freedom, that would make the NRA exactly like labor unions.

Neomalthusian · Mar 7, 2018

wellwisher said:
]Relative to public sector unions, the goal of the union is more tax payer money being spent on union employee wages and benefits. The way the money laundering works is a percent of this future earnings, will become a donation to Democrat politicians, who will then push for the increase. The math adds up as all the tax payers, paying unions, to pay Democrats. The doom and gloom of the democrat party is real but is it connected this money laundering drying up.

Unions will remind you the PAC dues are purely voluntary, (pursuant to Abood). Missing from that argument however is the following: Union officials/leaders/bosses/business managers/representatives/et cetera, who are paid from the union's agency fees, spew forth deeply partisan political rhetoric constantly. Even though only PAC dues (which are voluntary) go directly to PACs, the entire organization itself hurls political rhetoric continuously. Everything about labor unions, what they say, do and support, publicly and privately, is deeply, deeply political in nature. But even if they stopped acting and speaking so deeply politically all the time, the core activity of collective bargaining itself against a government is an inextricably political activity. The recent West Virginia teacher strike that resulted in the 5% pay raise they wanted was associated with the state cutting other governmental activities. That is an entirely political act. It is not some apolitical activity separate from political speech. Collective bargaining against taxpayers and their elected leaders and appointed managers is inextricably political, to its core.

[QUOTEIt does not matter, if I pay up the politicians up front, from my savings, and then I am reimbursed with a wage windfall to build my savings back up. It is still tax payer money being laundered.[/QUOTE]

I don't disagree, but even if you failed to prove this met the definition of money laundering, the core problem is that even the activities which do not involve literally donating to Democrats are nonetheless inherently political speech, and money cannot be compelled from people in order to fund political speech. Politicians cannot use taxes they levy against citizens to fund their own campaigns, for example.

The Supreme Court case is really connected to a Republican who has to pay union dues that will go to Democrats candidates who will lobby for higher wages. The plaintiff does benefit by the wager increase but he does not think he should have to pay only Democrats a kickback. He should be able to give his share of the money laundering to the Republicans. The Democrats do not wish to share the money laundering scam. The result may be nobody will be able to play.

Again, unions will remind you his PAC dues are voluntary, no money from Janus' paycheck goes directly to a Democratic coffer without his total voluntary consent. Which is true. What Janus is saying is that every dollar is inherently spent politically, because collective bargaining against government is by definition political. Every dollar that goes to the Illinois AFSCME directly strengthens the Illinois AFSCME, which strengthens the "Blue Model" of Illinois government and the death-grip Michael Madigan has on the state's purse. All money Janus is required to pay the AFSCME directly feeds one extremely political side of the spectrum.

James972 · Mar 7, 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.

Conservatives would love to see unions weakened or eliminated because they interfere with the efficiency of capitalism.

Neomalthusian · Mar 7, 2018

James972 said:
Conservatives would love to see unions weakened or eliminated because they interfere with the efficiency of capitalism.

That might be the way some people think about it, but government isn’t capitalistic, and unions predominately monopolize labor in the government sector.

So the reason conservatives should want to undermine unions is because of the way unions contribute to basically all of the aspects of government that they despise. Inefficient, can’t get anything done quickly or affordably, bogged down by endless self-imposed rules and regulations, contribute to enormous pension problems that can’t be funded, enjoy platinum level health benefits that private citizens can’t even possibly purchase for themselves, and on and on and on.

James972 · Mar 7, 2018

Neomalthusian said:
That might be the way some people think about it, but government isn’t capitalistic, and unions predominately monopolize labor in the government sector.

govt is not capitalist must try to be as much as possible in order to be efficient. Do you understand?

Neomalthusian · Mar 7, 2018

James972 said:
govt is not capitalist must try to be as much as possible in order to be efficient. Do you understand?

More than you can imagine, yes.

Mircea · Mar 7, 2018

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

You're right. I won't like it....I'll love it.

Unions were never necessary. There were already numerous legal actions wending their way through the court system at the State and federal level, which would have accomplished nearly everything the early unions did.

jet57 · Mar 7, 2018

Neomalthusian said:
"We" did nothing of the sort. I named the specific people I was talking about. I don't care what silly alternative label you want applied to them.

What they have been paid annually over the past couple of years ranges from the $300,000s per year up into the $500,000s per year.

This is not a coherent interpretation of what Janus is claiming. Janus is claiming mandatory dues (agency fees, or financial core dues) are spent politically. The fact that these union bosses and their allies in the media come right out and say that to deprive unions of these dues harms them politically confirms the Janus argument.

All dues are spent influencing politics. You declaring "they are not" is the AFSCME argument in front of the SCOTUS right now, and it is weak.

So unions argue. What we're watching happen though is unions as entire organizations working furiously to influence politics. They are going so far as to admitting that these dues (which you allege are not spent trying to influence politics) would decrease their ability to influence politics if they couldn't continue to enjoy security clauses in their contracts in 23 states. They are cannibalizing themselves with this argument.

Typical union catastrophizing. Are unions all bankrupt in the 27 states that are already Right To Work?

If that were true, it would mean the mission has failed, as Right To Work laws have not done what you claim, and you should not be so worried about them because they haven't done what you say they were designed to do.

It would make national a rule that is already in effect in a majority of the states, correct.

Actually it doesn't. It has destroyed itself in the private sector, membership cannot sustain itself for long when the actual people do not actually want any part of it, unions won't even let their bargaining units vote to recertify, even when a minority have ever had the privilege of doing so, union-managed pensions are commonly complete bankrupt failures, and numerous states where unions have had the most political influence for the longest amount of time have experienced or are currently experiencing inability to fund their pensions and by extension their state government (Illinois, New Jersey, Connecticut, Michigan). It doesn't "work" in general. It only "works" to squeeze more money out of taxpayers, for a while. It is a slowly closing chapter in American history. We will still hear about union-fueled disorganization and unrest in developing countries for the next couple generations, but it is time to put unions out to pasture and start looking at more modern political solutions to our problems.

Oh yes “We” did: in the beginning you made a silly blanket comment in reference to the union representatives. Then when you realized you weren’t making any sense, you named Presidents of Nationwide unions. Again, these are national representatives, so their salaries are not at all out of line.

As for political spending, I’ve already said that unions do spend money on campaign issues and candidates. Corps do the very same thing. So what’s your point? And no, not “All dues” are spent on politics; you’re showing your ignorance again. And dues are exactly what I said they are. You don’t belong to any union so you have no idea what you’re talking about here.

Membership rates in right to work states are low compared to closed shop states: MO 8%, KY 11% AK 5%, ID 6.1% compared to California 15.9% and NY 23%. So right to work does hurt membership which hurts local incomes. Right to work laws have done exactly what I’ve claimed.

As for what works, again, you have to read your history and sty up on what’s been going on. I can tell you that the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Western Conference pension fund has over 30 billion and is 90% funded; a pension rom which I draw. Central States is low because membership contributions are low, and so it goes for a lot of pension funds these days. When contributions go down, the ability to remain funded goes down as well. It’s not because pension funds don’t work, it’s because powers of monied interest don’t want them to work and are changing laws to weaken their funding: right to work is one such change. Monied interests want all retirement money to pass through Wall Street under its control.

The mood for unions is definitely on the upswing again, as it has been for time to time since our founding.

Neomalthusian · Mar 7, 2018

jet57 said:
As for political spending, I’ve already said that unions do spend money on campaign issues and candidates. Corps do the very same thing. So what’s your point?

Both unions and corporations directly spend money on campaigns, candidates, PACs, et cetera, and neither spends money that was forcibly taken from anyone. Neither can force someone to contribute to that expenditure involuntarily.

And no, not “All dues” are spent on politics; you’re showing your ignorance again.

It is not ignorant to inform you what the case in front of the Supreme Court right now is arguing. What it is arguing is that all government union dues are spent politically, because bargaining with the government over massive labor contracts that fundamentally affect virtually all areas of government, including both spending and taxing policy, is inextricably political.

You don’t belong to any union so you have no idea what you’re talking about here.

I am informing you of the very basics of what the Supreme Court Justices of the United States are looking at and considering right now with Janus v. AFSCME. This is entirely and fundamentally factual. I am just telling you what Janus is arguing. You can shout your disagreement with it all you like, I'm just telling you what the case is examining.

Membership rates in right to work states are low compared to closed shop states: MO 8%, KY 11% AK 5%, ID 6.1% compared to California 15.9% and NY 23%.

LOL for someone who keeps saying I don't know what I'm talking about, you sure don't. Alaska for example is not only not a Right To Work state, it is the second most unionized state in the country, behind only New York. Alaska is even more unionized than California.

As for what works, again, you have to read your history and sty up on what’s been going on. I can tell you that the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Western Conference pension fund has over 30 billion and is 90% funded; a pension rom which I draw.

Your anecdote doesn't refute the fact that a huge number of union pensions are well below the threshold that federal law considers "healthy."

Central States is low because membership contributions are low, and so it goes for a lot of pension funds these days. When contributions go down, the ability to remain funded goes down as well. It’s not because pension funds don’t work, it’s because powers of monied interest...

You grasping for excuses as to why union pension funds are failing doesn't somehow change the fact that they're failing. Unions should be requiring higher contributions from their members to keep their pensions solvent. They're not. They appear to be planning to just consume what's left and then demand taxpayers generally finance the rest via a pension bailout.

jet57 · Mar 7, 2018

Neomalthusian said:
Both unions and corporations directly spend money on campaigns, candidates, PACs, et cetera, and neither spends money that was forcibly taken from anyone. Neither can force someone to contribute to that expenditure involuntarily.

It is not ignorant to inform you what the case in front of the Supreme Court right now is arguing. What it is arguing is that all government union dues are spent politically, because bargaining with the government over massive labor contracts that fundamentally affect virtually all areas of government, including both spending and taxing policy, is inextricably political.

I am informing you of the very basics of what the Supreme Court Justices of the United States are looking at and considering right now with Janus v. AFSCME. This is entirely and fundamentally factual. I am just telling you what Janus is arguing. You can shout your disagreement with it all you like, I'm just telling you what the case is examining.

LOL for someone who keeps saying I don't know what I'm talking about, you sure don't. Alaska for example is not only not a Right To Work state, it is the second most unionized state in the country, behind only New York. Alaska is even more unionized than California.

Your anecdote doesn't refute the fact that a huge number of union pensions are well below the threshold that federal law considers "healthy."

You grasping for excuses as to why union pension funds are failing doesn't somehow change the fact that they're failing. Unions should be requiring higher contributions from their members to keep their pensions solvent. They're not. They appear to be planning to just consume what's left and then demand taxpayers generally finance the rest via a pension bailout.

Janus is arguing over $45 bucks a month dude. The entire case is a set up.

Neomalthusian · Mar 7, 2018

jet57 said:
Janus is arguing over $45 bucks a month dude. The entire case is a set up.

1) Every case that challenges the constitutionality of a certain law or procedure is "a set up." It is very intentional decision to ask the Supreme Court to hear a case. No one on the Janus side of this case is sneaking around and conspiring about this case like they're going to accomplish something sneaky. Their actions have been extremely overt and forthright, extremely specific and intentional about what they are challenging and why. So the union claim that this is some conspiracy by billionaires to trick the country is a complete lie. But then again, all unions do is lie, literally all the time.

2) And the amount of the fee is completely irrelevant. You acting like it's some negligible amount undermines your own histrionics about how bad this outcome would be for unions. If the amount is so negligible, and the benefits are so great, why do unions need to coerce the money out of workers' paychecks, and why are they so terrified of not being able to do so?

James972 · Mar 7, 2018

Mircea said:
You're right. I won't like it....I'll love it.

Unions were never necessary. There were already numerous legal actions wending their way through the court system at the State and federal level, which would have accomplished nearly everything the early unions did.

why would you need courts when you have capitalism which forces business to provide best products and jobs possible in order to survive?

Kal'Stang · Mar 7, 2018

jet57 said:
Well, let's look at history and what's happening right now in W. Virginia. History shows us that the disenfranchised always resort to fighting back, quite literally and that the disenfranchised always win in the end: pick any country where that has not happened... Secondly, those teachers in W Virginia are getting plenty of support and doing quite well, which only means that strikes are definitely going to be on the rise, and since striking is a right, said strikes will have the desired effect gathering support as they go.

The thirties will return; they always do.

China, Tienanmen Square.

jet57 · Mar 8, 2018

Kal'Stang said:
China, Tienanmen Square.

American revolution...

Read your history.

Kal'Stang · Mar 8, 2018

jet57 said:
American revolution...

Read your history.

What's American Revolution got to do with China? You said:

"History shows us that the disenfranchised always resort to fighting back, quite literally and that the disenfranchised always win in the end: pick any country where that has not happened."

I showed you a country where that has not happened.

jet57 · Mar 8, 2018

Kal'Stang said:
What's American Revolution got to do with China? You said:

"History shows us that the disenfranchised always resort to fighting back, quite literally and that the disenfranchised always win in the end: pick any country where that has not happened."

I showed you a country where that has not happened.

:lamo

The disenfranchised rose up against the emperor there too dude.

Kal'Stang · Mar 8, 2018

jet57 said:
:lamo

The disenfranchised rose up against the emperor there too dude.

And yet they still live in squalor, get paid pennies a day, and are even occasionally harvested for organs for "important people". yeah...they sure showed them!.....not.

Report: China still harvesting organs from prisoners at a massive scale <---in case you didn't believe me about the organ harvesting.

jet57 · Mar 8, 2018

Kal'Stang said:
And yet they still live in squalor, get paid pennies a day, and are even occasionally harvested for organs for "important people". yeah...they sure showed them!.....not.

Report: China still harvesting organs from prisoners at a massive scale <---in case you didn't believe me about the organ harvesting.

People in THIS country still live in sqular and get paid pennies, so what's your point?

The disenfranchised in this country always win.

ludin · Mar 8, 2018

jet57 said:
People in THIS country still live in sqular and get paid pennies, so what's your point?

The disenfranchised in this country always win.

actually they don't get paid pennies. but don't let facts get in your way.
There are reasons that people live the way they live.

You should probably look at that first.

Neomalthusian · Mar 8, 2018

jet57 said:
People in THIS country still live in sqular and get paid pennies, so what's your point?

The disenfranchised in this country always win.

jet57 said:
:lamo

The disenfranchised rose up against the emperor there too dude.

Nothing related to this topic involves anyone being "disenfranchised." Union members are disenfranchised by their unions in that they are prevented from being able to routinely vote to recertify or decertify their representation (some ridiculously small percentage of union workers, like 6%, have ever even had the privilege of voting for or against that representation). Proposed laws like the Employee Rights Act would address this abuse by unions.

But that's a different topic. Janus v. AFSCME doesn't have anything to do with disenfranchisement.

jet57 · Mar 8, 2018

Neomalthusian said:
Nothing related to this topic involves anyone being "disenfranchised." Union members are disenfranchised by their unions in that they are prevented from being able to routinely vote to recertify or decertify their representation (some ridiculously small percentage of union workers, like 6%, have ever even had the privilege of voting for or against that representation). Proposed laws like the Employee Rights Act would address this abuse by unions.

But that's a different topic. Janus v. AFSCME doesn't have anything to do with disenfranchisement.

Disenfranchised: Deprived of power, marginalized.

Look it up.

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