Jump to content

SCOTUS Rules in Janus - No More Involuntary Public Unions Dues For Political Contributions


Johnny Sack

Recommended Posts

And in the 22 states where the 7.8 million public sector unions were forced to donate to Democrats, they will now have to opt in (opt out was the other option)

I do not understand why public sector unions are even legal.  They destroying state finances.

 

DgtD6t0W0AAk4iK.jpg

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

You don't understand why collective bargaining is legal?

Really?

Public sector collective bargaining, no.  I do not understand why it is legal.  It is a union representing government workers who negotiate with the very politicians they bought.  The taxpayer gets fucked.  And there is no market check like there is with private sector unions.  We did not even have public sector unions until 1959.  And they have been a disaster to the financial health of state and local governments.

Here is what FDR said about them:

Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.”

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Public sector collective bargaining, no.  I do not understand why it is legal.  It is a union representing government workers who negotiate with the very politicians they bought.  The taxpayer gets fucked.  And there is no market check like there is with private sector unions.  We did not even have public sector unions until 1959.  And they have been a disaster to the financial health of state and local governments.

Here is what FDR said about them:

Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.”

FDR was wrong. 

Collective bargaining should exist wherever there are employees in every industry. Full stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

FDR was wrong. 

Collective bargaining should exist wherever there are employees in every industry. Full stop.

Bullshit.  Collective bargaining only works as an adversarial system.  Collective bargaining with public sector unions is the absolute definition of the fox guarding the henhouse.  It should be 100% illegal for public entities to enter into CBAs.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

No problem with arguments related to what union fees are used for.  Or how can can limit political contributions.

The idea that you don't understand why public sector folks can unionize seems kind of silly. 

Agreed.

But employees of all stripes should be allowed to unionize as a matter of right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

No problem with arguments related to what union fees are used for.  Or how can can limit political contributions.

The idea that you don't understand why public sector folks can unionize seems kind of silly. 

They can unionize, sure.  Freedom of association is guaranteed.  

CBAs with public sector unions should be illegal.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TrashMaster G said:

Bullshit.  Collective bargaining only works as an adversarial system.  Collective bargaining with public sector unions is the absolute definition of the fox guarding the henhouse.  It should be 100% illegal for public entities to enter into CBAs.

Public employees are adversaries of the federal government when it comes to the employee/employer relationship.

So, we'll just disagree on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Public employees are adversaries of the federal government when it comes to the employee/employer relationship.

So, we'll just disagree on that.

How can it be adversarial when the guys on the other side of the bargaining table have contributed to your political campaigns?

It's a joke.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TrashMaster G said:

How can it be adversarial when the guys on the other side of the bargaining table have contributed to your political campaigns?

It's a joke.

And there is no market check.  Private sector unions can only make so many financial demands as they know the company has to make a profit to survive.  That limitation does not exist for a CBA with the government.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason why public sector unions require so much cash is because the are essentially fundraising arms for the Democrat party, and until now, much of that fundraising has been legally mandated even among people who would otherwise despise the union's political priorities.

The idea that public sector unions are apolitical entities, doing their best to improve the work conditions of their members who would be exploited if not for the unions, is a quaint century-old idea. The modern public sector union is made up of government employees with cushy work environments, and whose mission is to elect Democrats with forced union dues.

Private sector unions are fine.  Public sector unions are dirtier than the mafia.  And more harmful.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Right. People who don't take contributions.

Who directly report to those who do and can often be either terminated, have their career growth shunted or be warehoused if they don't acquiesce.  This isn't a hard concept  and there are lots of other arguments against this ruling, why go for the bad one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really odd that we've been having these massive teacher strikes (including wildcat strikes) in multiple states when it's very well known and understood that the government and public unions are in cahoots.  

Edited by Fozzz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Right. People who don't take contributions.

Are you really simple enough to believe that the people sitting at the bargaining table actually make the decisions?  That the elected officials are completely hands-off in the process?  That the political appointees, whose very jobs are dependent upon the re-election of their boss, are not doing what they can to insure his/her re-election?

Do you also believe in unicorns?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

Who directly report to those who do and can often be either terminated, have their career growth shunted or be warehoused if they don't acquiesce.  This isn't a hard concept  and there are lots of other arguments against this ruling, why go for the bad one?

I don't necessarily oppose the ruling.

I'm opposed to the idea that public sector unions shouldn't be allowed to collectively bargain with management.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

The reason why public sector unions require so much cash is because the are essentially fundraising arms for the Democrat party, and until now, much of that fundraising has been legally mandated even among people who would otherwise despise the union's political priorities.

The idea that public sector unions are apolitical entities, doing their best to improve the work conditions of their members who would be exploited if not for the unions, is a quaint century-old idea. The modern public sector union is made up of government employees with cushy work environments, and whose mission is to elect Democrats with forced union dues.

Private sector unions are fine.  Public sector unions are dirtier than the mafia.  And more harmful.

Bullshit. As a public employee for the State of Texas, I had an option to join the union. I did not and got royally fucked by my political appointee boss when I voiced concerns about your tax dollars going to some shady shit. I suppose I could've gone public, but I didn't want my career to be ruined. I essentially had zero employment protections without being a union member.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TrashMaster G said:

Are you really simple enough to believe that the people sitting at the bargaining table actually make the decisions?  That the elected officials are completely hands-off in the process?  That the political appointees, whose very jobs are dependent upon the re-election of their boss, are not doing what they can to insure his/her re-election?

Do you also believe in unicorns?

Are you really simple enough to believe that the politicians and appointees could not be taken out of the collective bargaining equation if need be? There are any number of ways for the government to collectively bargain with employees without including elected officials. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Private sector unions are fine.  They are a negotiation at the bottom line of the business but they know that if they go too far, demand too much they are just pilfering their way out of a job.

Public Sector unions...Business is bad? Fuck you, pay me!
Tax base is shrinking? Raise taxes; Fuck you, pay me!
We provide a shitty service to the public? Fuck you, talk to my union rep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

The abstract discussion about whether public sector unions should even exist distracts from the actual case, which is about whether public sector unions can essentially coerce payments from NONMEMBERS to support the union’s random political causes.   It is basically ruling that protection rackets are wrong, and it’s crazy this has been going on until now.

Yepyepyep!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Are you really simple enough to believe that the politicians and appointees could not be taken out of the collective bargaining equation if need be? There are any number of ways for the government to collectively bargain with employees without including elected officials. 

No, there's not.  The elected officials OWN THE BUDGET.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

The abstract discussion about whether public sector unions should even exist distracts from the actual case, which is about whether public sector unions can essentially coerce payments from NONMEMBERS to support the union’s random political causes.   It is basically ruling that protection rackets are wrong, and it’s crazy this has been going on until now.

The case certainly had merit for the reasons above. However, the consequences can be unfortunate for workers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Private sector unions are fine.  They are a negotiation at the bottom line of the business but they know that if they go too far, demand too much they are just pilfering their way out of a job.

Public Sector unions...Business is bad? Fuck you, pay me!
Tax base is shrinking? Raise taxes; Fuck you, pay me!
We provide a shitty service to the public? Fuck you, talk to my union rep.

Image result for paulie fuck you pay me

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

If you've got a good product, it will sell itself. No need to force participation.

Maybe this decision gets public unions to actually work for their members instead of being a fundraising arm of the Democrat party.

That's almost as likely as c-suite executives actually working for labor instead of being a fundraising arm of the Republican Party.

So you see, we're in a bit of a pickle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

That's almost as likely as c-suite executives actually working for labor instead of being a fundraising arm of the Republican Party.

So you see, we're in a bit of a pickle.

C Suite executives have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders, not labor.  No one is forcing anyone to work for anyone else.  13th Amendment out front should have told you.  No one is forcing labor to give to the GOP either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

That's almost as likely as c-suite executives actually working for labor instead of being a fundraising arm of the Republican Party.

So you see, we're in a bit of a pickle.

You're running out of talking points and ignoring the sizable number of mega-corporations ingratiated with the left - we can start with most of Silicon Valley and go from there.  

Edited by BabaYaga
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Public sector should be illegal, and they were for a long time. What people feared would happen has happened. Democrats negotiate ever increasing packages, confident that a portion of it will be returned as campaign contributions and as votes.   There is is just an inherent conflict of interest, and the one getting screwed is the taxpayer.  Mr. Sack is correct on all counts.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why the left has a case of the vapors.  It's got nothing to do with labor  - check out the top contributors to the DNC

Top Organization Contributors

I have little doubt the media will spin this as a huge loss of revenue to the unions and democrats without saying that the revenue comes as an expense to the taxpayer.  Private sector unions are an anachronism who's main skill is inflating the cost of doing business without any regard to market forces or the economics of their industry.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

This is why the left has a case of the vapors.  It's got nothing to do with labor  - check out the top contributors to the DNC

Top Organization Contributors

I have little doubt the media will spin this as a huge loss of revenue to the unions and democrats without saying that the revenue comes as an expense to the taxpayer.  Private sector unions are an anachronism who's main skill is inflating the cost of doing business without any regard to market forces or the economics of their industry.

Is it an anachronism for wages to keep pace with productivity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not believe you should have to pay dues to a union you don't belong to, so I agree with this ruling. 

 

As far as the existence of public sector unions, I support the right for workers to act in and advocate for their best interests. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, seven said:

I do not believe you should have to pay dues to a union you don't belong to, so I agree with this ruling. 

 

As far as the existence of public sector unions, I support the right for workers to act in and advocate for their best interests. 

And you agree that non-union members shouldn't be eligible to receive benefits negotiated by that union?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

This is why the left has a case of the vapors.  It's got nothing to do with labor  - check out the top contributors to the DNC

Top Organization Contributors

I have little doubt the media will spin this as a huge loss of revenue to the unions and democrats without saying that the revenue comes as an expense to the taxpayer.  Private sector unions are an anachronism who's main skill is inflating the cost of doing business without any regard to market forces or the economics of their industry.

3 Unions in the top 10, all with more than 90+% of their donations (approximately 35M in total) to Democrats/Liberals causes.

To me, th is an extremely telling list and makes me curious who determines in these organizations which donations are made.

If we were expecting this to actually reflect the population, wouldn't these values be closer to 60/40 or 50/50 instead of so heavily one sided?

The other thing that stands out to me is that in the top 10 only one is hovering around 50/50.

Yeah... I'm a data whore. This is an absolutely fascinating list to dig into. Thanks for sharing this.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Foosters said:

And you agree that non-union members shouldn't be eligible to receive benefits negotiated by that union?

This is the piece that makes no sense. There is no way for non members not to receive some tangible benefit for union negotiated benefits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent ruling by the Supreme Court. One of the best things that can happen in this country is the death of public service unions which are strangling cities and states around the country forcing taxpayers to pay for unfunded pension liabilities. Public service unions create a  vicious cycle of politicians pandering to them for campaign contributions while passing the buck to future generations for poorly funded pension plans that are a weight around the neck of the municipalities across the country. Getting Gorsuch on the SC was huge. 

Edited by Iconoclast Texan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

So Johnny Sack opposes the police union.

Interesting.

I guess he thinks every cop should individually negotiate their salary and retirement plan based on their individual performance.  Best cop gets best salary and benefits.  Worst cop gets the worst compensation.  Then sprinkle in the 1000s of cops in between.  This should be an easy exercise for the police HR to manage.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...