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

Neomalthusian · Mar 1, 2018

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

What the Janus backers (and most commentators) miss is that agency fees are not just compensation for the financial costs of representation, but for the political costs of representing all the members in the bargaining unit and maintaining labor peace. As AFSCME’s attorney pointed out in his oral arguments, the agency fee is routinely traded for a no-strike clause in most union contracts. Should those clauses disappear, employers will have chaos and discord on their hands.

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.

longview · Mar 1, 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.

His real concern is about unemployment, namely his own.

OpportunityCost · Mar 1, 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.

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.

Neomalthusian · Mar 1, 2018

OpportunityCost said:
Realistically speaking, what abuses is the government really affecting on their employees?

Anyone can let fly with claims of being underpaid or whatever. But ultimately it's up to the government in the first place to set standards to determine what "abuse" even means in an employment context. A municipal government could engage in an employment practice that goes against state or federal regulations. People are human, so this can happen. But it's the government in the first place, some level of it or another, that actually sets and enforces the standard of what even constitutes abuse. So it ends up being a very strange, circular notion that we need government to protect labor unions... so that labor unions can force employees to pay labor unions... so that unions can protect employees from said government.

Is there a real function for unions in the public sector?

There are stated functions and then there are actual functions. Unions' actual goal is just more for money for less work. Not fair and adequate. More for less. If some union-represented employees are already overpaid relative to the norm, their representation ignores that and instead tortures the data to claim that, for example, the percentage annual raise they have been receiving is not enough. Forget the fact they're already overpaid. The percentage raise is the problem. And if the answer is not "more and more forever," then the claim is made that they're "going backwards." Backwards from what? They're already overpaid! Nope, they're just "going backwards." Even if "backwards" is construed to mean "not getting percentage wage increases every year that are as big as some past percentage wage increases were."

I have been a member of management while 40% of the workforce went on strike claiming they had not received a wage increase in 8 years. During those 8 years, every single one of them received a 2% or 3% wage increase every single year, year after year, at a minimum. But because that series of wage increases every year had been established 8 years ago and was unchanged during that time, they spun that to claim that none of them had had a wage increase in 8 years. This is what they do. They are professional liars.

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.

I agree that unions are not needed in government, but that means something else is needed, when it comes to public sector compensation and how that is determined.

For their own financial and political survival, unions need to quietly oppose and shoot down any actual policy that would permanently solve their stated problems with public sector compensation. It would be like a drug-maker that has discovered a cure for a terrible disease but refuses to sell it because that wouldn't be profitable. Sure it would permanently solve a stated problem, but that's not actually the goal. The goal is profit.

Because actually solving a problem reminds people that government can solve certain problems once and for all with the swipe of a pen, because government has lawmaking power, it undermines the sense of necessity and negotiating power of unions. They need to be able to keep up pretenses that they have something valid to bicker about every 2-3 years to renegotiate a contract.

For example, if we passed a law that comprehensively addressed total teacher compensation relative to cost-of-living and passed compensation standards that brought underpaid teachers up to where they should be, and cut back on the excesses that some overpaid teachers are enjoying, and established standards and pay ranges nationwide, there would be little coherent argument against this from any fairness standpoint. But people loyal to unions would rail against this type of policy no matter what it contained, no matter how favorable the provisions for its members were. Why? Because it would reveal to everyone how superfluous unions are compared to the superseding lawmaking power of the government itself. Unions need something to seem unfair in order for anyone to think they need to exist. A sense of outrage and unfairness is their lifeblood. So even though government has the ultimate power over employment, labor standards, and the existence and operation of unions, and therefore could permanently solve the things unions say are problems, unions don't want and cannot tolerate those permanent solutions. Permanent solutions are an existential threat to unions, so they quietly torpedo any such talk of permanent solutions. Their survival depends on the maintenance of "problems" and opposition to solutions.

Removable Mind · Mar 1, 2018

tebezoo said:
View attachment 67229408

Gosh, tell us how you really feel...but do it quickly. Oh, good luck posting in your next message board Forum membership. :2wave:

Kal'Stang · Mar 1, 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.

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

Neomalthusian · Mar 1, 2018

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

I'm sure he wants as many people to derive or recall that without him having to come right out and condone it. The entire thing is an underhanded threat. An appeal to the stick.

The pro-union argument concerning government unions depends on conflating private sector profit interests with government management's interests, as though they are the exact same type of thing. They are not. The public sector is unmistakably different from the private sector, both in terms of its powers (to make laws that apply to everyone, and to tax) as well as its incentives (no one in government is paid in equity or gets big bonuses from cutting labor costs or consolidating functions or departments or anything like that). The way the incentives work are fundamentally different.

But this undermines the argument in favor of government unions, so union apologists have to play pretend that private sector and public sector management incentives are the same. This gets especially absurd when you read commentaries about public sector unions written by union leaders. Almost every time, within a breath or two they have already diverted to the rhetoric about CEOs, billionaires, corporations, "the 1%," and so forth. They want the spotlight off of government unions, even when the topic is exclusively government unions, and they want people to think of unions as taking the fight to the rich CEOs.

OpportunityCost · Mar 1, 2018

Neomalthusian said:
Anyone can let fly with claims of being underpaid or whatever. But ultimately it's up to the government in the first place to set standards to determine what "abuse" even means in an employment context. A municipal government could engage in an employment practice that goes against state or federal regulations. People are human, so this can happen. But it's the government in the first place, some level of it or another, that actually sets and enforces the standard of what even constitutes abuse. So it ends up being a very strange, circular notion that we need government to protect labor unions... so that labor unions can force employees to pay labor unions... so that unions can protect employees from said government.

If its against the law, you don't need a union rep, you need a lawyer.

There are stated functions and then there are actual functions. Unions' actual goal is just more for money for less work. Not fair and adequate. More for less. If some union-represented employees are already overpaid relative to the norm, their representation ignores that and instead tortures the data to claim that, for example, the percentage annual raise they have been receiving is not enough. Forget the fact they're already overpaid. The percentage raise is the problem. And if the answer is not "more and more forever," then the claim is made that they're "going backwards." Backwards from what? They're already overpaid! Nope, they're just "going backwards." Even if "backwards" is construed to mean "not getting percentage wage increases every year that are as big as some past percentage wage increases were."

You missed the part about pensions, which is where the real abuse is occurring to taxpayers. Essentially, if you have a pro union public official on the other side of a Union rep during contract negotiations, who is really representing the taxpayers in that situation?

I have been a member of management while 40% of the workforce went on strike claiming they had not received a wage increase in 8 years. During those 8 years, every single one of them received a 2% or 3% wage increase every single year, year after year, at a minimum. But because that series of wage increases every year had been established 8 years ago and was unchanged during that time, they spun that to claim that none of them had had a wage increase in 8 years. This is what they do. They are professional liars.

Can't argue against that, its pretty straight forward and wrong on the part of the union.

I agree that unions are not needed in government, but that means something else is needed, when it comes to public sector compensation and how that is determined.

It is a meritocracy and there is more than enough law based in public sector employment.

For their own financial and political survival, unions need to quietly oppose and shoot down any actual policy that would permanently solve their stated problems with public sector compensation. It would be like a drug-maker that has discovered a cure for a terrible disease but refuses to sell it because that wouldn't be profitable. Sure it would permanently solve a stated problem, but that's not actually the goal. The goal is profit.

No, they need to make inroads into workplaces with bad work conditions.

For example, if we passed a law that comprehensively addressed total teacher compensation relative to cost-of-living and passed compensation standards that brought underpaid teachers up to where they should be, and cut back on the excesses that some overpaid teachers are enjoying, and established standards and pay ranges nationwide, there would be little coherent argument against this from any fairness standpoint. But people loyal to unions would rail against this type of policy no matter what it contained, no matter how favorable the provisions for its members were. Why? Because it would reveal to everyone how superfluous unions are compared to the superseding lawmaking power of the government itself. Unions need something to seem unfair in order for anyone to think they need to exist. A sense of outrage and unfairness is their lifeblood. So even though government has the ultimate power over employment, labor standards, and the existence and operation of unions, and therefore could permanently solve the things unions say are problems, unions don't want and cannot tolerate those permanent solutions. Permanent solutions are an existential threat to unions, so they quietly torpedo any such talk of permanent solutions. Their survival depends on the maintenance of "problems" and opposition to solutions.

Again, I don't disagree.

chuckiechan · Mar 1, 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.

The MSM and unions are making this an anti-union narrative which is not true. It is an “anti-river of public union money” that funds incumbents and candidates who decide on the unions wages and benefits. IOW, they will fund the bosses competitor if he doesn’t take the position they want.

Neomalthusian · Mar 1, 2018

chuckiechan said:
The MSM and unions are making this an anti-union narrative which is not true. It is an “anti-river of public union money” that funds incumbents and candidates who decide on the unions wages and benefits. IOW, they will fund the bosses competitor if he doesn’t take the position they want.

This case is anti-union, specifically it is anti-public sector-union. But what I would say is the left wing media, think tanks, Democrats, and unions are trying to mischaracterize this legal issue regarding union security clauses in government labor agreements as instead a vague corporate billionaire-orchestrated attack on all workers, which is asinine.

They are desperately trying to keep people distracted from the legal issue this case centers on, and instead make them angry about rich CEOs and convince uninformed and unintelligent people that this is merely the rich attacking the poor. This is what is inexcusably false.

Neomalthusian · Mar 2, 2018

OpportunityCost said:
If its against the law, you don't need a union rep, you need a lawyer.

Either a union representative or a lawyer could help you if your employer is doing something that's A) against the law or B) in violation of a contract you signed with your employer. There might always be a legitimate purpose for a law firm or "union" or whatever it wants to call itself to provide this advocacy and assistance for a fee. That's a legitimate purpose unions could serve. People will voluntarily pay unions (or professional associations or whatever else they want to label themselves) to provide that valued service.

You missed the part about pensions, which is where the real abuse is occurring to taxpayers. Essentially, if you have a pro union public official on the other side of a Union rep during contract negotiations, who is really representing the taxpayers in that situation?

Paying today's workers for services they performed today using a promise that taxpayers will compensate you starting 30 years from now should be illegal. Defined benefits should have always been illegal.

Can't argue against that, its pretty straight forward and wrong on the part of the union.

It is a meritocracy and there is more than enough law based in public sector employment.

No, they need to make inroads into workplaces with bad work conditions.

Again, I don't disagree.

Roger.

jet57 · Mar 2, 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.

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.

Neomalthusian · Mar 2, 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

I think it's a mistake for you to use the word "disenfranchised" as a defense of unions, given that only around 6% of union members in the country have ever had the privilege of voting for or against that representation. Maybe we should pass the Employee Rights Act so that re-certification/decertification elections become a matter of routine, the way re-elections in most democracies are routine.

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.

You are reiterating the author's underhanded threat of strikes against the government itself. Government has the lawmaking power. Government can pass a law that recognizes no right to strike against the government. There already are statutes in place to this effect. For example, a jurisdiction's police force typically cannot strike against the government/people. They are the law enforcers. Same usually goes for fire protection. And emergency response personnel. And essential hospital staff. Even utilities, while ostensibly allowed to strike, are compelled to respond to emergency issues related to the provision of essential services (electricity, water, sewer). Those whom government does permit to strike can be permanently replaced, assuming the reason they are striking is for economic gain.

The government does not and will not cower in fear of unions' strike rights when government itself creates the law concerning the lawfulness of strikes.

Neomalthusian · Mar 6, 2018

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

jet57 · Mar 6, 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

Well, the West Virginia teacher's union just won their strike and a 5% raise, so your "union boss" oxymoron doesn't fly again. And this was a huge strike too.

It was the large strikes that got the problem straightened out in the first place, so it'll be the huge strikes that bring back the equilibrium.

I'd get your "wait for the picket line to come down" shoes on if I were you.

Neomalthusian · Mar 6, 2018

jet57 said:
Well, the West Virginia teacher's union just won their strike and a 5% raise, so your "union boss" oxymoron doesn't fly again.

What is it specifically that "doesn't fly?" I shared an article that quotes union bosses and what they are saying about this case.

Proudly celebrating the extra 1% the legislature gave the teachers is strange considering the unknown impact of cutting Medicaid to accomplish it. Seems hardly something necessarily worth celebrating. How do West Virginia taxpayers know that an equal or bigger problem isn't being created than the one it's solving?

And anyway, the strike isn't really relevant to this topic. It may momentarily give you something you feel like you can gloat about, but this is about union security clauses and mandatory "agency fees."

jet57 · Mar 6, 2018

Neomalthusian said:
What is it specifically that "doesn't fly?" I shared an article that quotes union bosses and what they are saying about this case.

Proudly celebrating the extra 1% the legislature gave the teachers is strange considering the unknown impact of cutting Medicaid to accomplish it. Seems hardly something necessarily worth celebrating. How do West Virginia taxpayers know that an equal or bigger problem isn't being created than the one it's solving?

And anyway, the strike isn't really relevant to this topic. It may momentarily give you something you feel like you can gloat about, but this is about union security clauses and mandatory "agency fees."

Well, number one, the phrase "union boss" is a prejudicial tag of ultimate ignorance: there's no such thing as a union boss.

Secondly the "business agents" are exactly right: the case IS an attack on union dues and you have no way of proving that it isn't.

Neomalthusian · Mar 6, 2018

jet57 said:
Well, number one, the phrase "union boss" is a prejudicial tag of ultimate ignorance: there's no such thing as a union boss.

Union leader then.

Secondly the "business agents" are exactly right: the case IS an attack on union dues and you have no way of proving that it isn't.

LOL, "business agents" now. Keep running away from that stigma.

What you're not grasping is that the rhetoric union leaders (or whatever neutral name you want to give them) are shouting from the rooftops is continuously affirming Janus' entire case. They are outright admitting that the nature of agency fees is political. By insisting that this is all about billionaires and "the rich" and all of that standard hyper-partisan rhetoric... when the actual legal case argues that financial core dues fund political speech... they are playing right into the main argument they're raging about. Digging the hole deeper and deeper.

jet57 · Mar 6, 2018

Neomalthusian said:
Union leader then.

LOL, "business agents" now. Keep running away from that stigma.

What you're not grasping is that the rhetoric union leaders (or whatever neutral name you want to give them) are shouting from the rooftops is continuously affirming Janus' entire case. They are outright admitting that the nature of agency fees is political. By insisting that this is all about billionaires and "the rich" and all of that standard hyper-partisan rhetoric... when the actual legal case argues that financial core dues fund political speech... they are playing right into the main argument they're raging about. Digging the hole deeper and deeper.

They are not "union leaders" either. They are elected rank and file representatives of the will of a given collective bargaining unit no matter what the size. They are just as easily tossed out as they are tossed in; most B.A.s are afraid of their rank and file.

The nature of agency fees is keeping up with the cost of representation. It IS about the rich vs the rest of us. The rich want unions GONE or hadn't you figured that out yet? It was that kind of thinking that brought the unions into power in the first place!

(chuckle)

You forget man that high treason against the King was a death penalty; so how'd that threat and world view work out for ol' King George III?

That's who we are -- if you think that the robber barons are going to intimidate such a will, then you should go spend some time in union halls so that you can get a grasp of the subject you're talking about.

Neomalthusian · Mar 6, 2018

jet57 said:
They are not "union leaders" either. They are elected rank and file representatives of the will of a given collective bargaining unit no matter what the size. They are just as easily tossed out as they are tossed in; most B.A.s are afraid of their rank and file.

Whatever you want to say about these union leaders who earn $300,000 to $600,000 per year to try to take the stigma off, I don't really care. All your attempts to reframe what they are provide little more than a bit of amusement.

The nature of agency fees is keeping up with the cost of representation.

Unions, and their "business managers" or whatever you want to pretend they should be called are fervently and loudly arguing against themselves by injecting as much politics into this issue as possible. The lies, the rhetoric, the angry declarations that this case is a Koch brothers billionaires GOP rich evil anti-worker top 1% bla bla bla is framing this issue as extremely political.

It IS about the rich vs the rest of us.

And look! You're playing along!

It's fascinating the way unions and their sympathizers are fighting so hard in a way that merely confirms what Janus is saying.

That's who we are -- if you think that the robber barons are going to intimidate such a will, then you should go spend some time in union halls so that you can get a grasp of the subject you're talking about.

Screamingly political. Keep digging that hole deeper.

jet57 · Mar 6, 2018

Neomalthusian said:
Whatever you want to say about these union leaders who earn $300,000 to $600,000 per year to try to take the stigma off, I don't really care. All your attempts to reframe what they are provide little more than a bit of amusement.

Unions, and their "business managers" or whatever you want to pretend they should be called are fervently and loudly arguing against themselves by injecting as much politics into this issue as possible. The lies, the rhetoric, the angry declarations that this case is a Koch brothers billionaires GOP rich evil anti-worker top 1% bla bla bla is framing this issue as extremely political.

And look! You're playing along!

It's fascinating the way unions and their sympathizers are fighting so hard in a way that merely confirms what Janus is saying.

Screamingly political. Keep digging that hole deeper.

$300,000 to $600,000

The lies just get perpetuated to the ignorant. There's no reframing, just factually based 30 years of direct experience.

Republicans like Ronald Reagan made unions a huge part of their political agenda. So trying to accuse the other side of somehow cheating is intellectually dishonest at best and just astounding ignorance of the issue. And you better read up on the Koch brothers dude; you're drifting farther and farther out into the sea of the uninformed.

Your dishonesty is just an example of sour grapes and anger over not knowing the subject matter.

Neomalthusian · Mar 6, 2018

jet57 said:
The lies just get perpetuated to the ignorant.

I have not lied.

There's no reframing,

Yes there is. You are so particular about what you want union leaders to be called (oops, not supposed to call them union leaders either, even though everyone does).

So trying to accuse the other side of somehow cheating

I haven't accused anyone of cheating.

And you better read up on the Koch brothers dude

First you want me to read a union pamphlet, and now you're trying to feed me garbage about the Koch brothers. Keep diggin' that hole.

jet57 · Mar 6, 2018

Neomalthusian said:
I have not lied.

Yes there is. You are so particular about what you want union leaders to be called (oops, not supposed to call them union leaders either, even though everyone does).

I haven't accused anyone of cheating.

First you want me to read a union pamphlet, and now you're trying to feed me garbage about the Koch brothers. Keep diggin' that hole.

A business agent makes $300 to $6000,000 is lie right off the top. Do you want me to go through and delineate all your BS are are you willing to stop there?

You've accused the union movement of cheating by "making it political"... OF COURSE IT'S POLITICAL!! The far right rant to politics in the first place!

Yet - another lie.

And if you wish to remain ignorant of the Koch brothers, George Mason University and "economic Liberty", then be my guest. And you're the one standing in the hole, cause you're gettin buried by your inabilities with facts here.

You're just anti union, that's your entire argument in a nut shell.

Neomalthusian · Mar 6, 2018

jet57 said:
A business agent makes $300 to $6000,000 is lie right off the top. Do you want me to go through and delineate all your BS are are you willing to stop there?

The annual compensation of the people I cited was verified. What causes you to think they were paid something other than that? That’s stupid ****

You’ve accused the union movement of cheating

No I haven’t. I have no one of cheating.

You’ve accused the union movement of cheating by “making it political”... OF COURSE IT’S POLITICAL!!

The national right to work foundation attorney couldn’t have said it better himself. Thank you.

This is exactly what I’m saying. Unions in there sympathizers in their leaders or their “business agents” or whatever the bleep you want to call them are loudly undermining their own case.

Imagine a debate where you accused me of being short tempered and verbally aggressive, and my response to that was “ I AM NOT YOU MOTHER******* PIECE OF **** LYING SON OF A ***** (bla bla bla profanity insult threat). What was your response to that be? You would just laugh and say “see?”

That’s what unions are doing. Janus is arguing mandatory agency fees are inherently political speech, and it seems like union leaders and sympathizers are doing everything possible to make this issue as absolutely seethingly political as possible. Case in point. Case closed.

jet57 · Mar 7, 2018

Neomalthusian said:
The annual compensation of the people I cited was verified. What causes you to think they were paid something other than that? That’s stupid ****

No I haven’t. I have no one of cheating.

The national right to work foundation attorney couldn’t have said it better himself. Thank you.

This is exactly what I’m saying. Unions in there sympathizers in their leaders or their “business agents” or whatever the bleep you want to call them are loudly undermining their own case.

Imagine a debate where you accused me of being short tempered and verbally aggressive, and my response to that was “ I AM NOT YOU MOTHER******* PIECE OF **** LYING SON OF A ***** (bla bla bla profanity insult threat). What was your response to that be? You would just laugh and say “see?”

That’s what unions are doing. Janus is arguing mandatory agency fees are inherently political speech, and it seems like union leaders and sympathizers are doing everything possible to make this issue as absolutely seethingly political as possible. Case in point. Case closed.

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

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

You should take deep breaths before you post however.

Union due are not free speech: they are money due for the maintenance of representation.

What you have is a wholly uninformed prejudicial, opinion of labor unions that has no basis in fact.

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

Irremovable Intelligence