Discussion
  • Read More
    lena dunhams boobsHamilton Nolan
    1/11/16 9:14am

    NPR had an interview with the woman at the center of the case, and if it was not blatantly obvious that she’s a republican plant I don’t know what is. Her lawyer basically out and out called it an effort to break the democrats in the same breath he was saying it was squashing her free speech rights (even though its not, the fees do not go to the Unions political branch, only the negotiations which yes are two totally different things and have different accounts and budgeting and everything.)

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      benjaminalloverlena dunhams boobs
      1/11/16 9:24am

      Ya this is a bald political move from the far-right, and has nothing to do with protecting union members from participating in the “political speech” of their own contract negotiations. It’s purely cynical.

      ETA: Goddamned Citizens United.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      hommee le pitrebenjaminallover
      1/11/16 9:26am

      It’s most definitely. See police unions, though their leadership suggests the members vote for the Democratic party do you really they the members really do that? See Staten Island where a lot cop cops live. (the South Shore area)

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Flow BeeHamilton Nolan
    1/11/16 9:25am

    Does this include the police unions? Because, speaking as a black liberal, if it does I’m feeling very conflicted....

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Misteaks were madeFlow Bee
      1/11/16 9:37am

      All public unions should be included or what’s the point? Something about a cake and eating it too?

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Hamilton NolanFlow Bee
      1/11/16 9:37am

      There is a very interesting discussion to be had (and being had) about how the labor movement should treat police unions in light of their constant fuckery. Does the labor movement owe an allegiance to police unions? Not necessarily. But that’s an issue that can be dealt with politically, without requiring the gutting of all public unions.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    thechurchofbillhicksHamilton Nolan
    1/11/16 9:14am

    As a public school teacher (in NYS), I am terrified. While I disagree with many parts of what my union does, the alternative is far, far worse.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      holierthanyourmamathechurchofbillhicks
      1/11/16 9:49am

      What’s worse in taxpayer bankruptcy which is what is happening because of public sector unions and their pay and perqs.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Lovecrimesholierthanyourmama
      1/11/16 9:51am

      That's what the wealthy want you to believe. It's a canard.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Factcheck123Hamilton Nolan
    1/11/16 9:24am

    It’s crazy to think that some people DON’T consider this compelled speech - in order to get a government job, people are forced to support negotiations that may not be in their best interest. Why should a new teacher be compelled to support collective bargaining that enforces seniority rules, for example, when that may be detrimental to them? I’m sorry this may hurt Democratic fundraising (no, seriously, I think that’s unfortunate because I generally support the party, and certainly I hate the Republican Party), but that’s an irrelevant issue when it comes to who’s right in this case. Just because you or I don’t like the outcome doesn’t change the fact that this is clearly an unconstitutional requirement and should be struck down.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      lena dunhams boobsFactcheck123
      1/11/16 9:31am

      “Why should a new teacher be compelled to support collective bargaining that enforces seniority rules, for example, when that may be detrimental”

      Except in this case that’s specifically not the reason. Tenure and seniority rules are explicitly forbidden from being negotiated on in California where the case is from. Her sole reason is she dislikes the Unions political wing, yet her fee’s she is paying for benefiting from negotiation specifically DO NOT go to the political wing of the union, but only to the negotiations wing. As a public union member in most states you have to specifically request donations to the political wing, your union dues do not go to it outright.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Fleet Admiral JoshFactcheck123
      1/11/16 9:34am

      I have a feeling that a new teacher being part of a CBA that has seniority rules is still far superior than having to fend for oneself or - even worse - an “independent contractor”

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    GeorgeGeoffersonLivesHamilton Nolan
    1/11/16 9:22am

    Can conservative opponents of organized labor use the courts to break public unions in a way that they have not been able to in the political arena?

    Oh, they’ve done a better-than-decent job of doing it in the political arena; they’ve basically been neutured on net. This would simply be the coup de grâce.

    As a labor-friendly Democrat, I’m convinced this goes against the unions since we’ve gone so right that there is even a debate within the Democratic Party, itself, at times questioning the right to collectively bargain. In this kind of political environment, this would be the Court’s best chance (with least blowback) to finish them off. It’s a goddamn shame, but this is definitely one major example of where the Dems failed to protect social and economic gains.

    The funniest thing to me is that unions are required to cover everyone, but we’ve already seen at the state level that laws can then allow free-riders. If you’re going to go national right-to-work, at least have the balls to then legislate that workers not a part of the union don’t get to benefit from the work of the union as it relates to things like wages. It makes it complicated as hell, but that’s the consequence of such anti-worker depravity. It’s really the least they could do for their venality.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Rowen (Paid Politcal Shill)GeorgeGeoffersonLives
      1/11/16 9:30am

      I still haven’t figured out how the Left, in general, has allowed the Right to dictate the terms of the conversation for SO LONG. The only reason I can think of is that we are trying to deal with a large variety of viewpoints and the Right has kinda always been “Lower taxes for the rich, prayer will fix everything” (not always, but in the modern politcal arena, they’ve been more, well, consistent in their branding/message, even if I think it’s a really shitty and dehumanizing message).

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      TRUMP DELENDUS EST (fka Chatham Harrison)Rowen (Paid Politcal Shill)
      1/11/16 9:57am

      Because they always vote and we sometimes vote. You can get into conservative media, etc., but it mostly comes down to that.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    IskaralPustHamilton Nolan
    1/11/16 9:30am

    The only difference between these union fees and taxes is who gets the money. For taxes, it’s the government; for union fees, it’s a private organization, the union. Both, theoretically, use the money for the public benefit (assuming labor negotiation is a public benefit, which states have mostly decided it is). One possible solution, if the plaintiffs win, would be to create a tax credit for union contributions, exactly matching the amount of the union fee, and then reduce relevant employee salaries across the board by the amount of the fee itself. The net financial effect on all employees would be the same, except that the financial incentive to free-ride would be eliminated. If employees still do not want to contribute, then their motivations are more likely ideological and their 1st Amendment case is stronger.

    The psychological impact of not getting a tax credit might be different than the impact of paying a fee. As an alternative to the above, employees could choose between paying the fee to the union and paying an equivalent “free-riding” tax. Those who did not want to pay for collective bargaining because of political opposition to negotiating higher salaries could instead give their money to the state (which would, in theory, fall in line with their alleged desire to support cash-strapped governments).

    Both the above ideas might face their own legal challenges, but it is probably worth starting to consider alternative solutions to the free-riding problem should the decision go the wrong way. Mandatory union fees, viewed one way, have two separate purposes; one is to support the union through funding it, the other is to prevent employees from being incentivized to free-ride, by gaining the benefits of union negotiations while not paying the costs (and the incentive has its own secondary effect on union funding as well). Separating the “support” aspect of union contributions from the “disincentive” aspect with respect to free-riding would allow states to address potential 1st Amendment challenges such as the one at issue here.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      nov15-22IskaralPust
      1/11/16 10:06am

      One possible solution, if the plaintiffs win, would be to create a tax credit for union contributions

      With union membership and support of unions, at an all-time low, this is never going to happen politically. May as well try to pass a law stating that contributions to the Democratic party (and only them) eligible for a 100% tax credit.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      IskaralPustnov15-22
      1/11/16 10:23am

      But, remember that we would be tying the tax credit to an across-the-board reduction of teachers’ and other employees’ salaries, so that should be a selling point, right?

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    TRUMP DELENDUS EST (fka Chatham Harrison)Hamilton Nolan
    1/11/16 9:19am

    I don’t support public unions, all other things being equal.

    All other things are not equal.

    If the fight to circumscribe public unions were a genuine attempt to prevent government being bankrupted by overly generous contracts, it would be understandable, even supportable. But this is not that. This is an attempt to stamp out every last bit of worker representation in this country. It’s despicable.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      slythefoxTRUMP DELENDUS EST (fka Chatham Harrison)
      1/11/16 11:16am

      Why don’t you support public unions, or wouldn’t if all things were equal?

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      TRUMP DELENDUS EST (fka Chatham Harrison)slythefox
      1/11/16 4:10pm

      Because they have a bad habit of taking local elected governments hostage, then breaking the budget for their members’ benefit. It’s like if private unions could fire managers who don’t meet their terms.

      That said, I don’t oppose them, either. Public workers need to be able to bargain collectively. But, that bargaining should be restricted to total compensation and workplace conditions. More than anything, public unions need to be restrained in their ability to protect bad employees from discipline and/or termination. Police unions are actively undermining themselves and other public unions, and that sort of thing needs to end.

      I fully support private unions, including mandatory dues and closed shops, and I support private enterprise. So long as they follow the law and do not substantially detract from the public welfare, people should be able to organize themselves productively at their discretion (though I think both unions and companies should have highly circumscribed political speech and funding power.)

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Sid and FinancyHamilton Nolan
    1/11/16 9:16am

    Unfortunately, the plaintiffs will win.

    So let those who object enjoy workplace conditions and compensation at non-union/pre-union rates for a while.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      MBCockSid and Financy
      1/11/16 9:24am

      So if they do succeed, can I then bring forth a case in which I shouldn’t have to pay taxes for government policies that I don’t personally agree with?

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      e.nonSid and Financy
      1/11/16 9:31am

      just wait until the current contracts expire, and the formerly enjoyed benefits are slashed all in the name of budget control... esp since the majority of states are under republicon control.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Murry ChangHamilton Nolan
    1/11/16 1:03pm

    I feel like the people who don’t want to be members of the unions shouldn’t be forced to pay dues and shouldn’t be covered under the union contract. Once they see how little power they have as an individual, I bet a lot of them will end up coming back to the fold.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      violetquakerMurry Chang
      1/11/16 9:58pm

      re:”I feel like the people who don’t want to be members of the unions shouldn’t be forced to pay dues and shouldn’t be covered under the union contract.”

      It doesn’t quite work that way though as others pointed out. If a public sector employee who chose NOT to join a union were to file a grievance against the employer, guess who has to represent this employee? The union. The union has to use ITS resources to help someone who didn’t pay for them. That’s the way the rules are.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Murry Changvioletquaker
      1/12/16 8:37am

      That’s what I’m saying, that should be changed. If they don’t think a union is useful then they should have no dealings in any way with the union. Want to file a grievance? You can go ahead and get a lawyer like a non union employee.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    nopunin10didHamilton Nolan
    1/11/16 9:47am

    If this goes south for public sector unions, it’s time to get rid of free riders another way: stop representing them.

    If you pay the union dues, you get the better union contract. If you don’t, you’re on your own for salary and benefits negotiations.

    Unions need to get more selfish. The days of closed-shop contracts seem numbered.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      GeorgeGeoffersonLivesnopunin10did
      1/11/16 9:59am

      I’m pretty sure federal law requires unions to cover all workers regardless of union status. It would require a change of federal law, and that ain’t happening because the GOP wants free riders.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      nopunin10didGeorgeGeoffersonLives
      1/11/16 10:03am

      I’m not sure that’s mandated at the federal level for state unions. It’s currently state law for CA, where this suit is taking place, but I expect that’s something that could be changed as a response.

      Reply
      <