Supreme Court’s Janus decision is a win for government workers (and all Americans)

[The Big Dog]

In its 5-4 ruling Wednesday in Janus vs. AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees), the US Supreme Court overturned decades-old precedent that allowed government unions to compel public employees to pay union fees or risk being fired.

"Under Illinois law, public employees are forced to subsidize a union, even if they choose not to join and strongly object to the positions the union takes in collective bargaining and related activities," Alito wrote. "We conclude that this arrangement violates the free speech rights of nonmembers by compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern."

Another massive victory for Free Speech and curtailing the creeping power of the State-Union Industry Complex.

A summary of the good news here

 

[BobTheCoward]

In its 5-4 ruling Wednesday in Janus vs. AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees), the US Supreme Court overturned decades-old precedent that allowed government unions to compel public employees to pay union fees or risk being fired.



Another massive victory for Free Speech and curtailing the creeping power of the State-Union Industry Complex.

A summary of the good news here

Massive win is overselling it. It is a rather ideosyncratic issue.

 

[Fudbucker]

In its 5-4 ruling Wednesday in Janus vs. AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees), the US Supreme Court overturned decades-old precedent that allowed government unions to compel public employees to pay union fees or risk being fired.



Another massive victory for Free Speech and curtailing the creeping power of the State-Union Industry Complex.

A summary of the good news here

I'm a teacher and this ruling will affect my union. Can you explain how I'm a member of the "state-union industry complex"?

 

[BobTheCoward]

I'm a teacher and this ruling will affect my union. Can you explain how I'm a member of the "state-union industry complex"?

Tangential question


Do you agree it is a free speech issue?

 

[Lothian]

In its 5-4 ruling Wednesday in Janus vs. AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees), the US Supreme Court overturned decades-old precedent that allowed government unions to compel public employees to pay union fees or risk being fired.



Another massive victory for Free Speech and curtailing the creeping power of the State-Union Industry Complex.

A summary of the good news here

Is that Hugh Janus by any chance?

 

[Border Reiver]

To those people who see this as a win for free speech and association - If you don't pay union dues then the collective agreement negotiated by the union doesn't apply to you either. You are making the same wages as your unionized co-workers and enjoying the same benefits based on the sufferance of the employer - should said employer decide to cut your wages and/or benefits you will find yourself in a very disadvantaged position when it comes to negotiating, and just remember, if you don't like their offer the door is over there - don't let it hit you.

 

[The Big Dog]

I'm a teacher and this ruling will affect my union. Can you explain how I'm a member of the "state-union industry complex"?

Sure, here is an example. A local teachers union used their funds to back a slate running for the school board that was pro union. 90% of the teachers live outside the school district but they poured money into the election, got their favored slate elected, who promptly caved into the union when it came to negotiate the new contract, sticking the district taxpayers with the bill.

It is a common incestuous relationship between elected officials and public employee unions, where the elected officials do not protect their constituents, but rather the organized public employee unions whose votes they need to be reelected.

And that is why Illinois is circling the drain, because there ain't no money to pay the wildly lucrative public employee union pensions our elected officials doled out.

 

[BobTheCoward]

To those people who see this as a win for free speech and association - If you don't pay union dues then the collective agreement negotiated by the union doesn't apply to you either. You are making the same wages as your unionized co-workers and enjoying the same benefits based on the sufferance of the employer - should said employer decide to cut your wages and/or benefits you will find yourself in a very disadvantaged position when it comes to negotiating, and just remember, if you don't like their offer the door is over there - don't let it hit you.

So? That isn't a reason to compromise rights to free speech. I don't support rights because I think they produce good outcomes.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Sure, here is an example. A local teachers union used their funds to back a slate running for the school board that was pro union. 90% of the teachers live outside the school district but they poured money into the election, got their favored slate elected, who promptly caved into the union when it came to negotiate the new contract, sticking the district taxpayers with the bill.

It is a common incestuous relationship between elected officials and public employee unions, where the elected officials do not protect their constituents, but rather the organized public employee unions whose votes they need to be reelected.

And that is why Illinois is circling the drain, because there ain't no money to pay the wildly lucrative public employee union pensions our elected officials doled out.

Which is irrelevant to this case which was about agency fees.

 

[Tolls]

Sure, here is an example. A local teachers union used their funds to back a slate running for the school board that was pro union. 90% of the teachers live outside the school district but they poured money into the election, got their favored slate elected, who promptly caved into the union when it came to negotiate the new contract, sticking the district taxpayers with the bill.

It is a common incestuous relationship between elected officials and public employee unions, where the elected officials do not protect their constituents, but rather the organized public employee unions whose votes they need to be reelected.

And that is why Illinois is circling the drain, because there ain't no money to pay the wildly lucrative public employee union pensions our elected officials doled out.

I assume you mean "whose money they need to be re-elected", since your example is of union members who could not vote in the election in question.

 

[The Big Dog]

Which is irrelevant to this case which was about agency fees.

No:

"We conclude that this arrangement violates the free speech rights of nonmembers by compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern."

 

[The Big Dog]

I assume you mean "whose money they need to be re-elected", since your example is of union members who could not vote in the election in question.

Sorry, I had broadened the concept to include public employee union members generally (and in this case i was of a mind of the Chicago teachers Union)

Sorry that was not clear

 

[BobTheCoward]

Uh, no:

"We conclude that this arrangement violates the free speech rights of nonmembers by compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern."

None of the pile of money this decision was about went to swaying elections. They were used solely for things like bargaining. That is the public concern. How unions use money to influence elections is irrelevant to this case.

 

[The Big Dog]

None of the pile of money this decision was about went to swaying elections. They were used solely for things like bargaining. That is the public concern. How unions use money to influence elections is irrelevant to this case.

I'm sorry, but your analysis of the case is quite incorrect.

"We conclude that this arrangement violates the free speech rights of nonmembers by compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern."

 

[Fudbucker]

I'm sorry, but your analysis of the case is quite incorrect.

"We conclude that this arrangement violates the free speech rights of nonmembers by compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern."

There is already a mechanism in place to address that: union members can be "agency fee payers". They pay lesser dues and their money doesn't go towards any lobbying efforts.

 

[Segnosaur]

As much as I think Trump is a moron, con-artist, racist, and is ruining the U.S., I really have no objection to this ruling. I always felt unions were a form of legalized collusion, and while they may have been useful a century or so ago, in our current economic and technological environment they tend to cause more problems than they solve. Yes, you can always find the case of the worker who was repressed by the company and needed the union to protect him from employer abuse, but you can also find cases where unqualified people get protection that they don't deserve.

(Granted, I'm Canadian so it doesn't really apply to me, but I still support the concept. I remember talking to someone who worked for Statistics Canada... they had an entire block of cubicles of employees who SHOULD have been fired, but couldn't be. So it was cheaper/easier to just have these people sitting in a cubicle doing nothing all day while they hired consultants who could actually get the job done.)

To those people who see this as a win for free speech and association - If you don't pay union dues then the collective agreement negotiated by the union doesn't apply to you either. You are making the same wages as your unionized co-workers and enjoying the same benefits based on the sufferance of the employer - should said employer decide to cut your wages and/or benefits you will find yourself in a very disadvantaged position when it comes to negotiating, and just remember, if you don't like their offer the door is over there - don't let it hit you.

On the other hand, what if you're exceptionally competent (better than the average worker)? The company wouldn't want to cut your wages simply because they would lose one of their better employees. Heck, if the collective agreement doesn't apply to you then they may even be able to offer you MORE money. So for people like that, union dues are a waste of money.

 

[Fudbucker]

As much as I think Trump is a moron, con-artist, racist, and is ruining the U.S., I really have no objection to this ruling. I always felt unions were a form of legalized collusion, and while they may have been useful a century or so ago, in our current economic and technological environment they tend to cause more problems than they solve. Yes, you can always find the case of the worker who was repressed by the company and needed the union to protect him from employer abuse, but you can also find cases where unqualified people get protection that they don't deserve.

(Granted, I'm Canadian so it doesn't really apply to me, but I still support the concept. I remember talking to someone who worked for Statistics Canada... they had an entire block of cubicles of employees who SHOULD have been fired, but couldn't be. So it was cheaper/easier to just have these people sitting in a cubicle doing nothing all day while they hired consultants who could actually get the job done.)

On the other hand, what if you're exceptionally competent (better than the average worker)? The company wouldn't want to cut your wages simply because they would lose one of their better employees. Heck, if the collective agreement doesn't apply to you then they may even be able to offer you MORE money. So for people like that, union dues are a waste of money.

There are always tradeoffs. As someone who is a whistleblower, and would have been fired a year and a half ago for reporting illegal District practices, the union protection I received/am receiving has been invaluable. But it comes at a cost: we have outstanding teachers we can't afford to keep because the payscale is the same for everyone. They either leave teaching altogether or work at districts that can pay more or don't have as challenging demographics. It sucks to lose people like that.

Based on my experience running a local union, and being lead negotiator for ten years, I think unions are definitely a necessary evil. If management was competent, had our best interests in mind, and didn't retaliate against their own employees, then a union wouldn't be necessary. But that hasn't been my experience, or the experience of the other union leaders I used to talk to when we had our monthly meetings.

 

[NoahFence]

I'm sorry, but your analysis of the case is quite incorrect.

"We conclude that this arrangement violates the free speech rights of nonmembers by compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern."

Seems pretty cut and dry to me. I don't want my money funding a union that supports someone I do not. Especially if I'm not even IN that union.

They got this right. Blind squirrel and nuts and all.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm waiting for the unions to stop representing the whole workforce, you're in the union, you get the raise, you aren't in the union, negotiate your own.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Seems pretty cut and dry to me. I don't want my money funding a union that supports someone I do not. Especially if I'm not even IN that union.

They got this right. Blind squirrel and nuts and all.

It was determined decades ago that the union members didn't have to pay for any political contributions the union made. Union lobbying and candidate support money has been segregated for decades.