[Victoribus Spolia]

This seems to be an interesting case and if the court rules in favor of Mark Janus, which it looks like it might, I think this could have a greater impact on American politics than people realize.

What is everyone's thoughts on this case?

Supreme Court Justices Clash, Again, on Public Union Fees

The high court revisited an issue that has divided its members several times. The viability of public-sector unions could hang in the balance.



For the third time in four years, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court clashed over the rights of government employees who don’t want to pay for the union services they receive in labor-friendly states.

But one judge's voice was conspicuously absent.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, who joined the court last year after being appointed by President Donald Trump, remained silent during arguments on Monday. That’s notable because Gorsuch has seemed eager to spar with his colleagues during previous arguments and, more importantly, because he was the only member of the court not to participate in a similar case that ended in a 4-4 tie two years ago after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

Gorsuch has voted reliably with the court’s conservative bloc, which wants to invalidate mandatory fees for union services and, in the process, overturn a 1977 decision called Abood v. Detroit Board of Education that allowed for unions to collect them. That's left many observers to conclude that the Abood ruling is hanging by a thread.

Both inside and outside the courtroom, the arguments in Monday’s case centered on two distinct but very much interconnected themes.

The first is the heart of the legal argument: Does it violate a public employee’s First Amendment rights to be forced to pay an “agency fee” for services that unions provide on his behalf? Agency fees, sometimes called “fair-share fees,” are different from union dues. They pay for services like collective bargaining and grievance resolutions but do not pay for direct lobbying or political donations.

The challengers to the agency fees argue that they violate the constitutional right to free speech because they are a form of forced speech that requires non-union members to back union positions on the size, scope and operations of government.

The second main theme deals with political reality: Would eliminating unions’ ability to collect agency fees cripple their ability to represent workers and the ability of governments to manage their workplaces?

Unions and their supporters claim that getting rid of the agency fees would create a “free rider” problem. People would stop paying union dues because they were getting the services from the unions anyway. That, in turn, would drive up the price of union dues, prompting more people to leave the union. Eventually, the unions would not be financially viable or represent enough workers to collectively bargain on their behalf.

The political implications were not lost on the judges.

http://www.governing.com/topics/workfor ... -dues.html

Also good coverage:

https://www.npr.org/2018/02/01/58253988 ... unions-dry

[Hong Wu]

First the unions, then the soy! We'll wipe those soylent grins off their faces... forever.

I think it's fair to argue that unions should have to represent the actual interests of their members. If the union can't survive naturally, maybe it was not viable/needed? Who knows!

[Victoribus Spolia]

First the unions, then the soy! We'll wipe those soylent grins off their faces... forever.

I think it's fair to argue that unions should have to represent the actual interests of their members. If the union can't survive naturally, maybe it was not viable/needed? Who knows!

Yeah, but I can see the union's point too in that it does seem that if you benefit from the results of collective bargaining you should have to pay atleast a portion of the dues that the others do.

The union goal in all of this should be for the public sector to become a "closed-shop" for unions which would solve this entire problem for them.

The NPR articles I cited does put the conservative position in perspective as well, it does seem that one's money is seen as a form of expression and so one should NOT be required to pay for political action that one does not agree with in regards to the union, especially if such a person is not a member of the union to begin with. Its basically the same as a law requiring someone to donate money to a political organization that they don't agree with.

I think the supreme court will end up reversing the 1977 decision on this 5-4, and then the states will have to make the tough decision to either making union-membership obligatory when entering the public sphere, or watch as the public-sector unions enter into a state of insignificance.

This will be devastating to unions in general, but will also, invariably, decrease the political power of the Left and will also save states lots of money as the collective bargaining power of the unions will drop along with their leech-like rolls.

Just like with most private sector shops, you can only be unionized or non-unionized, you can't be both and that is what the 1977 ruling attempted to do, and thats why we are back here again with this issue at the highest legal level.

[Stormsmith]

In the union I was affiliated, and to which my hubby belongs, the deal was if you didn't want to pay dues you had to pay that amount to charity.

[Decky]

It would be a lot easier if the unions just directly ran the enterprises and you cut out the middle men (lazy shareholders and incompetent managers). Siberia is big enough for all of them.

[Victoribus Spolia]

In the union I was affiliated, and to which my hubby belongs, the deal was if you didn't want to pay dues you had to pay that amount to charity.

I doubt SCOTUS would find this a compelling solution.

[The Immortal Goon]

Naturally, of course, the right fighting for the ability to have free stuff off the backs of the working left—yet again

The union movement in the US has been almost completely crushed by the right, there’s one last tiny vestige of professional unions (already sinking and full of holes) that the right is going to smash. Though I doubt this will end their constant complaining about being triggered victims of the opponents they have already shot.

The noose tightens though as every option of comfort and escape for the working man is systematically removed and smashed with glee.

We are all accelerationists now.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Naturally, of course, the right fighting for the ability to have free stuff off the backs of the working left—yet again

The union movement in the US has been almost completely crushed by the right, there’s one last tiny vestige of professional unions (already sinking and full of holes) that the right is going to smash. Though I doubt this will end their constant complaining about being triggered victims of the opponents they have already shot.

The noose tightens though as every option of comfort and escape for the working man is systematically removed and smashed with glee.

We are all accelerationists now.

Simmer Down Bro.....Here ya go:



Besides there hasn't been a ruling yet.

Also curious why you think its acceptable to require someone not in a union to pay union dues to support causes and efforts they don't support...

Either way, the unions seem to have dropped the soap on this one and only have themselves to blame....they should have advocated for closed-shop unionization of the public sector long ago which would have precluded the shitty 1977 compromise ruling which has led to this situation.

[Truth To Power]

What is everyone's thoughts on this case?

Public sector unions should never have been certified in the first place. In a democracy, the military, the police and the civil service have to be politically neutral. Unions are not politically neutral, are often stridently socialist, and do not hesitate to use their privilege to over-rule the will of voters and decisions of courts. The power of public sector unions is a huge reason for government dysfunction.

[Truth To Power]

Naturally, of course, the right fighting for the ability to have free stuff off the backs of the working left—yet again

What free stuff would that be? It's the unions who have the privilege of extracting rents from employers by depriving other workers of access to economic opportunity.

The union movement in the US has been almost completely crushed by the right,

No, it's been crushed by its own greed. If unions hadn't extorted exorbitant contract terms that relentlessly bankrupted all their private sector employers, they would not now be a marginalized rump other than in the public sector.

there’s one last tiny vestige of professional unions (already sinking and full of holes) that the right is going to smash.

Maybe when their privilege is revoked, unions will learn to oppose privilege for the benefit of all, rather than just seek countervailing privilege that benefits them at the expense of others.

The noose tightens though as every option of comfort and escape for the working man is systematically removed and smashed with glee.

Maybe the working man can learn the lesson of the unions' failure: that the only moral cure for privilege is justice, and equal liberty rights for all, not countervailing privilege that harms others. But I doubt it.

We are all accelerationists now.

It's quite remarkable how the privileged come to the same place whether they are rich or not: they prefer to perish in blood and flame, and watch their children slaughtered before their eyes, rather than relinquish even the smallest portion of their unjust advantages.

[The Immortal Goon]

Simmer Down Bro.....Here ya go:

Crass as it may have been, my point still stands.

The right has been very clever. In the scope of the last hundred, fifty, twenty-five, ten, and even five years. The right has been able to whip its members into a frenzy of believing they’re constantly the victim of something.

Meanwhile, the left has been shot, imprisoned, and systematically torn down. So completely that the Democrats, the party of Red Scares, World Wars, Japanese internment, (non professional) union busting, and unfettered capitalism, is referred to as “the left.”

It boggles the mind that the same people whining about their victimhood at the hands of leftists are also looking at the last fetters of the American union movement on the ground, already bleeding to death, and about to put a bullet in its head.

This has been, and continues to be, a sterling long term victory for the right.

Besides there hasn't been a ruling yet.

Even if it fails to kill the last unions, the damage is done.

Also curious why you think its acceptable to require someone not in a union to pay union dues to support causes and efforts they don't support...

If they don’t support the cause and effort for the profession that they chose, they sound like they shouldn’t be in it.

This cuts both ways. If you’re in a police union and you don’t like the way the police unions are promoting a “blue lives matter” campaign, maybe you should question why you joined the force in the first place.

If you’re an ICE agent and you’re against Trump and his proposals for basically drumming up more work for you—maybe you should question the company you keep.

These kinds of issues aren’t as important to me as the broader issues (as blue lives don’t matter, and I don’t support Trump and his proposals) but the reason that the right supports this, even stripping cops and ICE of their collective bargaining power, is because these represent the last tiny bits of the organized power of anyone in the working class. Even if the union supports policies that I disagree with, they are still organs of workers’ power and democracy.

Either way, the unions seem to have dropped the soap on this one and only have themselves to blame....they should have advocated for closed-shop unionization of the public sector long ago which would have precluded the shitty 1977 compromise ruling which has led to this situation.

I agree. The education unions are particularly littered with holes and loopholes that are undermining unions. Whether they didn’t have the will or power is up to debate. Regardless, history moves on.

Even these professional unions provided an escape valve for aspiring working class people.

It used to be that a high school diploma guaranteed you a better life. You could support a household, but a house and a car, and get by fine.

Then it was a bachelor’s degree. While the bachelor degree has become so expensive as to become a burden, people still flooded to get one.

As the unions that protected such jobs were smashed, a high school diploma meant nothing. You couldn’t provide for yourself, let alone dependents, let alone have nice things.

Money continued to collect at the top. For a brief window it was an advanced degree. Then that meant nothing. And now they’re smashing the last of the remaining unions that helped those workers.

More money at the top.

Eventually the center will not hold.

Like I said, we’re all accelerationists now.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I agree on much of what you said, some of it is Marxist fantasy, but this part seems a bit inaccurate:

It used to be that a high school diploma guaranteed you a better life. You could support a household, but a house and a car, and get by fine.

Then it was a bachelor’s degree. While the bachelor degree has become so expensive as to become a burden, people still flooded to get one.

As the unions that protected such jobs were smashed, a high school diploma meant nothing. You couldn’t provide for yourself, let alone dependents, let alone have nice things.

The problem with this is that it ignores the skills gap and the incredible shortage of people that are in high demand that practice skilled-labor.

Plenty of people want to work in an office and do easy work, but you can make a monetary KILLING in blue-collar jobs. Mike Rowe has spoken on this, at one level or another a million times, and its true. There is not a lack of opportunity out there, there is a lack of will to both work, move-away, and do the dirty jobs.

http://mikerowe.com/2016/02/stopignoringskillsgap/

Back in 2009, 12 million people were out of work. Most Americans assumed that could be fixed with 12 million new jobs. Thus, “job creation” became headline news. But then, the Bureau of Labor and Statistics quietly announced that companies were struggling to fill 2.1 million skilled positions. That statistic generated a lot of questions.

How could so many good jobs go unfilled when so many people were out of work? Why weren’t people lining up for these opportunities? Why weren’t apprenticeship programs exploding with eager applicants?

Democrats Mike Rowe, Chuck, Toiletblamed corporate greed. “Just offer workers more money,” they said, “and the skills gap will close itself.”

Republicans blamed the unemployed. “See? The jobs are out there,” they said. “Now get off your lazy ass and get one!”

Consequently, the skills gap became politicized, and ultimately overshadowed by unemployment figures, interest rates, inflation, and just about every other economic indicator. And so, the existence of 2.1 million good jobs got very little attention.

Now, eight years later, unemployment is down, interest rates are under control, and inflation is in check. But the overall labor participation rate is very low, and the skills gap is wider than ever. In fact, the latest numbers are out, and they are astonishing. According to the Department of Labor, America now has 5.6 million job openings.

Forget your politics for a moment, and consider the enormity of what’s happening here. Millions of people who have stopped looking for work, are ignoring 5.6 million genuine opportunities. That’s not a polemic, or a judgment, or an opinion. It’s a fact. And so is this: most of those 5.6 million opportunities don’t require a diploma – they require require a skill.

Unfortunately, the skilled trades are no longer aspirational in these United States. In a society that’s convinced a four-year degree is the best path for the most people, a whole category of good jobs have been relegated to some sort of “vocational consolation prize.” Is it any wonder we have 1.3 trillion dollars in outstanding student loans? Is it really a surprise that vocational education has pretty much evaporated from high schools? Obviously, the number of available jobs and the number of unemployed people are not nearly as correlated as most people assume.

I’m no economist, but the skills gap doesn’t seem all that mysterious – it seems like a reflection of what we value. Five and half million unfilled jobs is clearly a terrible drag on the economy and a sad commentary of what many people consider to be a “good job,” but it also represents a tremendous opportunity for anyone willing to learn a trade and apply themselves.

As long as Americans remain addicted to affordable electricity, smooth roads, indoor plumbing and climate control, the opportunities in the skilled trades will never go away. They’ll never be outsourced. And those properly trained will always have the opportunity to expand their trade into a small business. But if we don’t do something to reinvigorate the trades, and make a persuasive case for good jobs that actually exist, I’m afraid the metaphorical crap in my literal toilet will never go away, and millions of great opportunities will go down the drain.

In closing, please – don’t let anyone tell you that opportunity is dead in America. That’s the biggest myth of all, and in honor of President’s Day, I propose we smash that turd to pieces and Mike Rowe, Myth, Toiletflush it away with all due speed. In a few weeks, mikeroweWORKS will release another batch of Work Ethic Scholarships. This year, I put a call out to a few large companies that rely on skilled labor, and they’ve agreed to help me fund a new round. I’m grateful. Along with the help of many on this page, we’ve raised enough to make a sizable splash in mid March.

Also on the Skilled Labor Shortage:

http://www.nhbr.com/January-19-2018/The ... solutions/

There are companies starving for millennial blood right now in construction fields that pay BIG bucks.

but then again, if you are insistent on getting a degree in gender studies, your probably going to end up working in fast food and hating America....big shocker.

I knew better, I've worked in construction the whole time I've been ought of highschool and have been married with a wife at home and children and have paid my school as I go.

I know the degrees I am getting will not pay the bills (Ph.D. in philosophy, Master in Theology, Bachelors in history and philosophy), so I learned a trade. I'm just stacking credentials for when I write books and debate once I retire at age 40.

It can be done. When many Americans expect laziness to be rewarded, its easy to see why they are so pessimistic.

[The Immortal Goon]

I agree on much of what you said, some of it is Marxist fantasy, but this part seems a bit inaccurate:

The problem with this is that it ignores the skills gap and the incredible shortage of people that are in high demand that practice skilled-labor.

Plenty of people want to work in an office and do easy work, but you can make a monetary KILLING in blue-collar jobs. Mike Rowe has spoken on this, at one level or another a million times, and its true. There is not a lack of opportunity out there, there is a lack of will to both work, move-away, and do the dirty jobs.

This isn't necessarily untrue. However, the big issues (so far as I understand it) is location and sustainability of the jobs.

For instance, most of the open jobs are construction in the least densely populated area in the lower 48--The Southwest. The most densely populated area, the Northeast, has the fewest jobs.

As someone that frequently strings jobs together (also with a PhD, looking to make it full time while doing other work until that comes) there is a big problem with this. I would have to move to the Southwest, leaving all my contacts and current gigs behind, to have a series of temporary gigs in the Southwest. When that job glut cleared up, I'd be left with wondering the country.

It's not that appealing. And, honestly, I'd sooner move to Asia and teach (which also have a lot of jobs open). You have the same issue when you're tired of it or want to put down roots, in that they're not necessarily sustainable jobs, but I'd rather go somewhere interesting than a fucking Phoenix suburb.

And there are a lot of people leaving the country to work for that same reason. Though there are no formal stats, this is as many as ten million Americans that live abroad.

It was an artificial bump, but it is true that people used to not have to move thousands of miles for temporary jobs. I agree, learning a skill is helpful (and to do that, basic things like showing up on time, being able to learn and clean, etc go a long way for it). This is less a "Those kids these days..." and more of a structural issue. The Cold War is over and the economy is turning back to a more natural state, the state it was in before the Wars. The unions were partially a defence against this, to keep the wealth coming down.

But it was still a compromise with a capitalistic economy that was humming along doing what it was built to do.

[Stormsmith]

I doubt SCOTUS would find this a compelling solution.

Perhaps they would be imaginative enough to understand the Union calculated the cost of dues when it's negotiating wage rises. If someone object to paying union due, then the union has an obligation to correct this in a way that doesn't reward the non member at the expense of the paying members

[Hong Wu]

I'm interested in hearing how I only want to see the unions destroyed because of my feels.

[The Immortal Goon]

I'm interested in hearing how I only want to see the unions destroyed because of my feels.

I have no idea why you want them destroyed. Do you have an analysis that seems to indicate that this is a positive development?

[Hong Wu]

I have no idea why you want them destroyed. Do you have an analysis that seems to indicate that this is a positive development?

I think they fund the left, I think the left is basically satanic right now, if people don't have to pay for them they probably won't do so, so this ruling will probably destroy them.

[The Immortal Goon]

I think they fund the left, I think the left is basically satanic right now, if people don't have to pay for them they probably won't do so, so this ruling will probably destroy them.

We could go why you think a fallen angel is running the Democratic Party and why an anti-leftist party represents the left, but beyond that this doesn't seem to be overly emotional. Short-sighted licking of your masters' globalist hands sure, but it doesn't seem particularly emotional to me at the moment.

[Hong Wu]

[Torus34]

A few thoughts from a poor old country mouse.

In a capitalist society there are two, and only two, institutions which can act as a counterpoise to the control which business can exercise over the lives of the workers. These are the government and unions. What can happen [Ed.: and probably will,] when neither protects the worker can be found in the history of the Industrial Revolution in the UK and in the novels of Mr. Charles Dickens.*

In the United States of America there is a vocal minority who proclaim that their right to own firearms is based in the need to rise up against a repressive government. There should be a high correlation (r) within this community of that belief and the belief that unions are needed to counter a repressive business owner class. The actual value of r might be taken as an index of the ability of people to avow two conflicting concepts.

Union vs. anti-union can be framed as a class struggle. There is a struggle presently ongoing within the United States of America. It can be described as a struggle between fact-driven [Enlightenment] reasoning and emotional, doctrine-driven reasoning*. A Venn diagram of the two struggles would be interesting.

* Some of the statements of the current President of the United States of America, Donald Trump, are indicative of the side taken by the US Administration.