Free Speech and Nonmember Union Agency Fees

[James Madison]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf

“The State’s extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public- sector employees violates the First Amendment. Abood erred in con- cluding otherwise, and stare decisis cannot support it. Abood is therefore overruled.”

“Forcing free and independent individuals to endorse ideas they find objectionable raises serious First Amendment concerns. E.g., West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 633. That in- cludes compelling a person to subsidize the speech of other private speakers. E.g., Knox v. Service Employees, 567 U. S. 298, 309. In Knox and Harris v. Quinn, 573 U. S. ___, the Court applied an “exact- ing” scrutiny standard in judging the constitutionality of agency fees rather than the more traditional strict scrutiny. Even under the more permissive standard, Illinois’ scheme cannot survive. Pp. 7–11.
(2)

Neither of Abood’s two justifications for agency fees passes mus- ter under this standard. First, agency fees cannot be upheld on the ground that they promote an interest in “labor peace.” The Abood Court’s fears of conflict and disruption if employees were represented by more than one union have proved to be unfounded: Exclusive rep- resentation of all the employees in a unit and the exaction of agency fees are not inextricably linked. To the contrary, in the Federal Gov- ernment and the 28 States with laws prohibiting agency fees, mil- lions of public employees are represented by unions that effectively serve as the exclusive representatives of all the employees. Whatever may have been the case 41 years ago when Abood was decided, it is thus now undeniable that “labor peace” can readily be achieved through less restrictive means than the assessment of agency fees.
Second, avoiding “the risk of ‘free riders,’ ” Abood, supra, at 224, is not a compelling state interest. Free-rider “arguments . . . are gener- ally insufficient to overcome First Amendment objections,” Knox, su- pra, at 311, and the statutory requirement that unions represent members and nonmembers alike does not justify different treatment. As is evident in non-agency-fee jurisdictions, unions are quite willing to represent nonmembers in the absence of agency fees. And their duty of fair representation is a necessary concomitant of the authori- ty that a union seeks when it chooses to be the exclusive representa- tive. In any event, States can avoid free riders through less restric- tive means than the imposition of agency fees.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Here in Ontario, you can be forced to join a union to take a job, forced to pay union dues to that union despite never having wanted to join it, and then have those union dues spent on campaign contributions to a political party that you oppose but the union supports (usually the NDP). I remember having a WTF moment when I first discovered that. It makes no sense whatsoever and is obviously very wrong, but it persists.

Basic seniority is another issue I have with unions. Why should the more productive worker get laid off first just because she was a more recent hire? That's a very basic abuse of union power that almost all unions engage in.

Unions serve a vital role, and I think they are too weak in the USA, but they have a much darker and abusive side if they get too powerful. It isn't just employers that mistreat workers.

 

[laughing dog]

I agree because "this standard" is wrong. Money is not speech.

 

[James Madison]

I agree because "this standard" is wrong. Money is not speech.

Quite right. Fortunately, the Court has not held money is speech.

 

[laughing dog]

I agree because "this standard" is wrong. Money is not speech.

Quite right. Fortunately, the Court has not held money is speech.

Basically it has.

 

[James Madison]

I agree because "this standard" is wrong. Money is not speech.

Quite right. Fortunately, the Court has not held money is speech.

Basically it has.

Basically it has not. But feel free to cite the case, or perhaps the plethora of cases, in which the Court has "basically" said "money is speech." I'd love to read them.

 

[laughing dog]

Basically it has.

Basically it has not. But feel free to cite the case, or perhaps the plethora of case, in which the Court has "basically" said "money is speech." I'd love to read them.

Either stop being pedantic or read the opinions you cite.

From your OP
"Forcing free and independent individuals to endorse ideas they find objectionable raises serious First Amendment concerns. " only makes sense if one equates fees with endorsing ideas (i.e. speech) which is basically saying the money is speech. Now, I understand that is the standard the SCOTUS has adopted, but IMO it is ridiculous standard.

 

[James Madison]

Basically it has.

Basically it has not. But feel free to cite the case, or perhaps the plethora of case, in which the Court has "basically" said "money is speech." I'd love to read them.

Either stop being pedantic or read the opinions you cite.

From your OP
"Forcing free and independent individuals to endorse ideas they find objectionable raises serious First Amendment concerns. " only makes sense if one equates fees with endorsing ideas (i.e. speech) which is basically saying the money is speech. Now, I understand that is the standard the SCOTUS has adopted, but IMO it is ridiculous standard.

"Forcing free and independent individuals to endorse ideas they find objectionable raises serious First Amendment concerns. " only makes sense if one equates fees with endorsing ideas (i.e. speech) which is basically saying the money is speech.

Nope, wrong again. Adhere to your own advice, read the opinion, but read the opinion carefully, not carelessly.

That statement is not "basically saying money is speech." The statement is saying the act of giving money to support an idea or money given to endorse an idea is speech. If the money is A.) not given to B.) support an idea or endorse an idea, then there is not any speech. So, the money sitting in your bank account is not speech, despite your incorrect attestations of money is speech.

 

[laughing dog]

Either stop being pedantic or read the opinions you cite.

From your OP
"Forcing free and independent individuals to endorse ideas they find objectionable raises serious First Amendment concerns. " only makes sense if one equates fees with endorsing ideas (i.e. speech) which is basically saying the money is speech. Now, I understand that is the standard the SCOTUS has adopted, but IMO it is ridiculous standard.

"Forcing free and independent individuals to endorse ideas they find objectionable raises serious First Amendment concerns. " only makes sense if one equates fees with endorsing ideas (i.e. speech) which is basically saying the money is speech.

Nope, wrong again. Adhere to your own advice, read the opinion, but read the opinion carefully, not carelessly.

That statement is not "basically saying money is speech." The statement is saying the act of giving money to support an idea or money given to endorse an idea is speech. If the money is A.) not given to B.) support an idea or endorse an idea, then there is not any speech. So, the money sitting in your bank account is not speech, despite your incorrect attestations of money is speech.

No, I was right - you are resorting to pedantry. But if you like, the notion that giving money that ends up supporting unwanted speech is speech is ridiculous and wrong. The idea that bargaining terms and conditions of employment is equivalent to speech is ridiculous and wrong. But once you adopt the ridiculous idea that basically giving money is equivalent to speech, this is what happens.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Nope, wrong again. Adhere to your own advice, read the opinion, but read the opinion carefully, not carelessly.

That statement is not "basically saying money is speech." The statement is saying the act of giving money to support an idea or money given to endorse an idea is speech. If the money is A.) not given to B.) support an idea or endorse an idea, then there is not any speech. So, the money sitting in your bank account is not speech, despite your incorrect attestations of money is speech.

No, I was right - you are resorting to pedantry. But if you like, the notion that giving money that ends up supporting unwanted speech is speech is ridiculous and wrong. The idea that bargaining terms and conditions of employment is equivalent to speech is ridiculous and wrong. But once you adopt the ridiculous idea that basically giving money is equivalent to speech, this is what happens.

ld: SCOTUS says money is speech.
jm: Nuh-uh, they say spending money is speech. *gloat*

 

[James Madison]

Nope, wrong again. Adhere to your own advice, read the opinion, but read the opinion carefully, not carelessly.

That statement is not "basically saying money is speech." The statement is saying the act of giving money to support an idea or money given to endorse an idea is speech. If the money is A.) not given to B.) support an idea or endorse an idea, then there is not any speech. So, the money sitting in your bank account is not speech, despite your incorrect attestations of money is speech.

No, I was right - you are resorting to pedantry. But if you like, the notion that giving money that ends up supporting unwanted speech is speech is ridiculous and wrong. The idea that bargaining terms and conditions of employment is equivalent to speech is ridiculous and wrong. But once you adopt the ridiculous idea that basically giving money is equivalent to speech, this is what happens.

No, you were wrong and are wrong. This isn’t pedantry, this is adhering to what the Court said. You deviated from what the Court said.

The Court didn’t say money was speech and the statement by the Court of giving money to support or endorse an idea is not the equivalent of money is speech, the latter lacking the essentially elements of the act of giving money and the money given is to support or endorse an idea.

But if you like

“If you like”? No, the Court focused in on the conduct of giving money to support or endorse an idea, it’s what the Court “liked,” as opposed to your BS notion of money is speech.

The idea that bargaining terms and conditions of employment is equivalent to speech is ridiculous and wrong.

The above is NOT what the Court said and neither is the above statement a view adopted by the majority.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

Nope, wrong again. Adhere to your own advice, read the opinion, but read the opinion carefully, not carelessly.

That statement is not "basically saying money is speech." The statement is saying the act of giving money to support an idea or money given to endorse an idea is speech. If the money is A.) not given to B.) support an idea or endorse an idea, then there is not any speech. So, the money sitting in your bank account is not speech, despite your incorrect attestations of money is speech.

No, I was right - you are resorting to pedantry. But if you like, the notion that giving money that ends up supporting unwanted speech is speech is ridiculous and wrong. The idea that bargaining terms and conditions of employment is equivalent to speech is ridiculous and wrong. But once you adopt the ridiculous idea that basically giving money is equivalent to speech, this is what happens.

ld: SCOTUS says money is speech.
jm: Nuh-uh, they say spending money is speech. *gloat*

Well that didn’t take long, bravo on the Strawman. I didn’t say “spending money is speech.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

ld: SCOTUS says money is speech.
jm: Nuh-uh, they say spending money is speech. *gloat*

Well that didn’t take long, bravo on the Strawman. I didn’t say “spending money is speech.”

"The statement is saying the act of giving money to support an idea or money given to endorse an idea is speech."

So yeah, you did say that. Trying to qualify it to "support an idea" is being pedantic. Normal human beings don't need to long hand every sentence.

 

[ZiprHead]

This whole decision is bullshit because participation in political activities and donation is strictly voluntary. And non-member dues paying employees are only paying for the cost bargaining. No one is forced to have their dues go towards political activities.

 

[laughing dog]

No, you were wrong and are wrong. This isn’t pedantry,

Using pedantry to defend pedantry and a straw man. Wow.

“If you like”? No, the Court focused in on the conduct of giving money to support or endorse an idea, it’s what the Court “liked,” as opposed to your BS notion of money is speech.

I was referring to your pedantry. But again, more pedantry to defend pedantry.

The above is NOT what the Court said and neither is the above statement a view adopted by the majority.

Wow, even more pedantry. It is the effect of what the Court ruled.

The ruling is consistent with the SCOTUS standard - no doubt about it. But it is an example of a consistent ruling based on a ridiculous standard.

 

[dismal]

Nope, wrong again. Adhere to your own advice, read the opinion, but read the opinion carefully, not carelessly.

That statement is not "basically saying money is speech." The statement is saying the act of giving money to support an idea or money given to endorse an idea is speech. If the money is A.) not given to B.) support an idea or endorse an idea, then there is not any speech. So, the money sitting in your bank account is not speech, despite your incorrect attestations of money is speech.

No, I was right - you are resorting to pedantry. But if you like, the notion that giving money that ends up supporting unwanted speech is speech is ridiculous and wrong. The idea that bargaining terms and conditions of employment is equivalent to speech is ridiculous and wrong. But once you adopt the ridiculous idea that basically giving money is equivalent to speech, this is what happens.

ld: SCOTUS says money is speech.
jm: Nuh-uh, they say spending money is speech. *gloat*

I think what they have said is more like: restricting money spent on speech is restricting speech. Which, of course, is so obviously true that people must mischaracterize it in order to rebut it.

 

[horhangi]

This whole decision is bullshit because participation in political activities and donation is strictly voluntary. And non-member dues paying employees are only paying for the cost bargaining. No one is forced to have their dues go towards political activities.

True, but what the court held was that collective bargaining by a public sector union is essentially political speech. It has impacts on aspect of the political process, think state budgets, and so is political speech.

 

[James Madison]

"The statement is saying the act of giving money to support an idea or money given to endorse an idea is speech."

So yeah, you did say that. Trying to qualify it to "support an idea" is being pedantic. Normal human beings don't need to long hand every sentence.

No, I did not say "spending money is speech." And qualifying statements is not being pedantic but is being precise and accurate, concepts lost on you when it comes to rational argument and carefully expressing a point of view.

 

[James Madison]

Using pedantry to defend pedantry and a straw man. Wow.
I was referring to your pedantry. But again, more pedantry to defend pedantry.

The above is NOT what the Court said and neither is the above statement a view adopted by the majority.

Wow, even more pedantry. It is the effect of what the Court ruled.

The ruling is consistent with the SCOTUS standard - no doubt about it. But it is an example of a consistent ruling based on a ridiculous standard.

Using pedantry to defend pedantry and a straw man. Wow.

More BS to defend your BS. You've spent more time defending your error than addressing what the Court actually did say.

It is the effect of what the Court ruled.

Impossible as an effect since what the Court said and rule is not the equivalent of what you are attributing to the decision.

You have not made a substantive criticism of the decision. But you have most certainly attacked an opinion and statements the majority decision never made.

 

[James Madison]

. And non-member dues paying employees are only paying for the cost bargaining.

This was a very contested issue at oral argument and among the Justices of Court. The majority made an argument linking the "cost of bargaining" to political activities, political speech, and speech itself. The majority argument on this issue is reasonable but not ineluctable. I am not sure whether I personally find the majority argument on this point persuasive.