Free Speech and Nonmember Union Agency Fees

[Jimmy Higgins]

"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...

Yeah... precise and accurate. Not everyone feels it is necessary to hold to a high written precision when the context of the conversation is understood.

...concepts lost on you when it comes to rational argument and carefully expressing a point of view.

Oh please.

 

[dismal]

Not everyone f.eels it is necessary to hold to a high written precision when the context of the conversation is understood.

Yeah, sure, like when I hear someone say "ZMFOG the Supreme Court said money is speech" I usually assume the context is a bloviating leftist who is ignorant of the law is trying to silence someone.

So perhaps your comment does make sense in context.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

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.

Unions have been known to do the donation thing, as well as give endorsements. How would you feel if you were in a union that donated union money to Trump? It probably wouldn't happen, but it is a valuable thought exercise.

 

[laughing dog]

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

Apparently, you are the only person who did not understand what I wrote. And if you count the actual words, you have posted much more "BS".

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

Nope, but it is clear you are incapable at this time of reasoning outside of your boring pedantic box.

You have not made a substantive criticism of the decision.

Duh. I said multiple times I agreed the decision is consistent with the Supreme Court standard.

But you have most certainly attacked an opinion and statements the majority decision never made.

Flinging more "BS" is not a substantive criticism.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Unions have been known to do the donation thing, as well as give endorsements. How would you feel if you were in a union that donated union money to Trump? It probably wouldn't happen, but it is a valuable thought exercise.

I belong to an union that gives money to candidates I do not support and that I support. However, I think it is wrong for unions, PACS, etc... to give money to candidates. That does not bother me, because as an adult, I realize that I don't get my way all of the time, and that organizations cannot please all of its members all of the time.

 

[James Madison]

No, I did not say "spending money is speech." And qualifying statements is not being pedantic but is being precise and accurate...

Yeah... precise and accurate. Not everyone feels it is necessary to hold to a high written precision when the context of the conversation is understood.

...concepts lost on you when it comes to rational argument and carefully expressing a point of view.

Oh please.

Higgins, this would be a more productive dialogue if you just addressed the facts of the case and the Court’s reasoning. No editorializing man.

Just tell me specifically which part of the majority decision you dislike or find unpersuasive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

Apparently, you are the only person who did not understand what I wrote. And if you count the actual words, you have posted much more "BS".

Nope, but it is clear you are incapable at this time of reasoning outside of your boring pedantic box.

You have not made a substantive criticism of the decision.

Duh. I said multiple times I agreed the decision is consistent with the Supreme Court standard.

But you have most certainly attacked an opinion and statements the majority decision never made.

Flinging more "BS" is not a substantive criticism.

Thank you for another vacuous post that doesn’t address the opinion.

In addition, the Court’s holding is not the equivalent of your BS statement “basically money is speech.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[laughing dog]

Apparently, you are the only person who did not understand what I wrote. And if you count the actual words, you have posted much more "BS".

Nope, but it is clear you are incapable at this time of reasoning outside of your boring pedantic box.
Duh. I said multiple times I agreed the decision is consistent with the Supreme Court standard.
Flinging more "BS" is not a substantive criticism.

Thank you for another vacuous post that doesn’t address the opinion.

Um, it did explicitly address the opinion (I underlined the passage).

In addition, the Court’s holding is not the equivalent of your BS statement “basically money is speech.”

You are entitled to your "BS" opinions.

 

[James Madison]

Um, it did explicitly address the opinion (I underlined the passage).

In addition, the Court’s holding is not the equivalent of your BS statement “basically money is speech.”

You are entitled to your "BS" opinions.

Your statement of “basically money is speech” is factually different from what the Court said in this case. Your statement is not what the Court said and is different from what the Court said.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[laughing dog]

Um, it did explicitly address the opinion (I underlined the passage).

In addition, the Court’s holding is not the equivalent of your BS statement “basically money is speech.”

You are entitled to your "BS" opinions.

Your statement of “basically money is speech” is factually different from what the Court said in this case. Your statement is not what the Court said and is different from what the Court said.

I never claimed it was verbatim what the Court said, so you can stop promoting a straw man. The key term is "Basically" which means, in effect. And, in effect, clearly includes using money not the mere existence of money.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Unions have been known to do the donation thing, as well as give endorsements. How would you feel if you were in a union that donated union money to Trump? It probably wouldn't happen, but it is a valuable thought exercise.

Indeed. And if "money is speech" then your money is being taken to support something you do not support, which would mean you are being forced to say something you don't wish to say. It becomes a free speech issue. Shouldn't have to go that route to knock this sort of thing down, but it makes sense given that ridiculous idea (money being speech is a stupid idea).

 

[James Madison]

Unions have been known to do the donation thing, as well as give endorsements. How would you feel if you were in a union that donated union money to Trump? It probably wouldn't happen, but it is a valuable thought exercise.

Indeed. And if "money is speech" then your money is being taken to support something you do not support, which would mean you are being forced to say something you don't wish to say. It becomes a free speech issue. Shouldn't have to go that route to knock this sort of thing down, but it makes sense given that ridiculous idea (money being speech is a stupid idea).

Yes, money being speech may be a stupid idea, but it’s not an idea endorsed, adopted, or relied by the majority.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[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.

Unions have been known to do the donation thing, as well as give endorsements. How would you feel if you were in a union that donated union money to Trump? It probably wouldn't happen, but it is a valuable thought exercise.

I has long been known to union members that they can decline to have their dues used for political activities. You can even ask for and receive a refund if you didn't know that.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-oew-coupal-tanner30-2009jun30-story.html

 

[James Madison]

Here is an important passage from the majority decision. This passage is important because it is a fact the majority uses to show A.) The union is engaging in speech on important societal issue, indeed advocating a particular point of view, and B.) the union is using agency fees of nonmembers for that speech.

Illinois, like some other States and a number of counties and cities around the country, suffers from severe budget problems. As of 2013, Illinois had nearly $160 billion in unfunded pension and retiree healthcare liabilities.11 By 2017, that number had only grown, and the State was grappling with $15 billion in unpaid bills.12 We are told that a “quarter of the budget is now devoted to payingdown” those liabilities.13 These problems and others led Moody’s and S&P to downgrade Illinois’ credit rating to“one step above junk”—the “lowest ranking on record for a
U. S. state.

The Governor, on one side, and public-sector unions, on the other, disagree sharply about what to do about these problems. The State claims that its employment-related debt is “‘squeezing core programs in education, public safety, and human services, in addition to limiting [the State’s] ability to pay [its] bills.’” Securities Act of 1933 Release No. 9389, 105 S. E. C. Docket 3381 (2013). It therefore “told the Union that it would attempt to address th[e financial] crisis, at least in part, through collective bargaining.” Board Decision 12–13. And “the State’s desire for savings” in fact “dr[o]ve [its] bargaining” positions on matters such as health-insurance benefits and holiday, overtime, and promotion policies. Id., at 13; Illinois Dept. of Central Management Servs. v. AFSCME, Council 31, No. S–CB–16–17 etc., 33 PERI ¶67 (ILRB Dec.13, 2016) (ALJ Decision), pp. 26–28, 63–66, 224.

But when the State offered cost-saving proposals on these issues, the Union countered with very different suggestions. Among other things, it advocated wage and tax increases, cutting spending “to Wall Street financial institutions,” and reforms to Illinois’ pension and tax systems(such as closing “corporate tax loopholes,” “[e]xpanding the base of the state sales tax,” and “allowing an income tax that is adjusted in accordance with ability to pay”). Id., at 27–28. To suggest that speech on such matters is not of great public concern—or that it is not directed at the“public square,” post, at 16 (KAGAN, J., dissenting)—is to deny reality.​

Okay, so, according to Alito, the Union took a particular position regarding taxation, who to tax, how much to tax, which tax exemptions to abolish, and such speech expresses views which are certainly a particular point of view on a matter of public concern (who to tax, who to tax more, who to tax less, exemptions, etcetera). The use of agency fees from non-members for the above conduct illuminated by Alito, amounts to compelling people to financially contribute to speech expressing particular points of view on the important issue of budget and taxation. Hence, it is compelled speech.

 

[laughing dog]

Here is an important passage from the majority decision. This passage is important because it is a fact the majority uses to show A.) The union is engaging in speech on important societal issue, indeed advocating a particular point of view, and B.) the union is using agency fees of nonmembers for that speech.

Illinois, like some other States and a number of counties and cities around the country, suffers from severe budget problems. As of 2013, Illinois had nearly $160 billion in unfunded pension and retiree healthcare liabilities.11 By 2017, that number had only grown, and the State was grappling with $15 billion in unpaid bills.12 We are told that a “quarter of the budget is now devoted to payingdown” those liabilities.13 These problems and others led Moody’s and S&P to downgrade Illinois’ credit rating to“one step above junk”—the “lowest ranking on record for a
U. S. state.

The Governor, on one side, and public-sector unions, on the other, disagree sharply about what to do about these problems. The State claims that its employment-related debt is “‘squeezing core programs in education, public safety, and human services, in addition to limiting [the State’s] ability to pay [its] bills.’” Securities Act of 1933 Release No. 9389, 105 S. E. C. Docket 3381 (2013). It therefore “told the Union that it would attempt to address th[e financial] crisis, at least in part, through collective bargaining.” Board Decision 12–13. And “the State’s desire for savings” in fact “dr[o]ve [its] bargaining” positions on matters such as health-insurance benefits and holiday, overtime, and promotion policies. Id., at 13; Illinois Dept. of Central Management Servs. v. AFSCME, Council 31, No. S–CB–16–17 etc., 33 PERI ¶67 (ILRB Dec.13, 2016) (ALJ Decision), pp. 26–28, 63–66, 224.

But when the State offered cost-saving proposals on these issues, the Union countered with very different suggestions. Among other things, it advocated wage and tax increases, cutting spending “to Wall Street financial institutions,” and reforms to Illinois’ pension and tax systems(such as closing “corporate tax loopholes,” “[e]xpanding the base of the state sales tax,” and “allowing an income tax that is adjusted in accordance with ability to pay”). Id., at 27–28. To suggest that speech on such matters is not of great public concern—or that it is not directed at the“public square,” post, at 16 (KAGAN, J., dissenting)—is to deny reality.​

Okay, so, according to Alito, the Union took a particular position regarding taxation, who to tax, how much to tax, which tax exemptions to abolish, and such speech expresses views which are certainly a particular point of view on a matter of public concern (who to tax, who to tax more, who to tax less, exemptions, etcetera). The use of agency fees from non-members for the above conduct illuminated by Alito, amounts to compelling people to financially contribute to speech expressing particular points of view on the important issue of budget and taxation. Hence, it is compelled speech.

In the case of fair share dues, the "agency fees" are not used for compelled speech. So there is no logical reason to rule that fair share dues constitute compelled speech.

 

[James Madison]

Here is an important passage from the majority decision. This passage is important because it is a fact the majority uses to show A.) The union is engaging in speech on important societal issue, indeed advocating a particular point of view, and B.) the union is using agency fees of nonmembers for that speech.

Illinois, like some other States and a number of counties and cities around the country, suffers from severe budget problems. As of 2013, Illinois had nearly $160 billion in unfunded pension and retiree healthcare liabilities.11 By 2017, that number had only grown, and the State was grappling with $15 billion in unpaid bills.12 We are told that a “quarter of the budget is now devoted to payingdown” those liabilities.13 These problems and others led Moody’s and S&P to downgrade Illinois’ credit rating to“one step above junk”—the “lowest ranking on record for a
U. S. state.

The Governor, on one side, and public-sector unions, on the other, disagree sharply about what to do about these problems. The State claims that its employment-related debt is “‘squeezing core programs in education, public safety, and human services, in addition to limiting [the State’s] ability to pay [its] bills.’” Securities Act of 1933 Release No. 9389, 105 S. E. C. Docket 3381 (2013). It therefore “told the Union that it would attempt to address th[e financial] crisis, at least in part, through collective bargaining.” Board Decision 12–13. And “the State’s desire for savings” in fact “dr[o]ve [its] bargaining” positions on matters such as health-insurance benefits and holiday, overtime, and promotion policies. Id., at 13; Illinois Dept. of Central Management Servs. v. AFSCME, Council 31, No. S–CB–16–17 etc., 33 PERI ¶67 (ILRB Dec.13, 2016) (ALJ Decision), pp. 26–28, 63–66, 224.

But when the State offered cost-saving proposals on these issues, the Union countered with very different suggestions. Among other things, it advocated wage and tax increases, cutting spending “to Wall Street financial institutions,” and reforms to Illinois’ pension and tax systems(such as closing “corporate tax loopholes,” “[e]xpanding the base of the state sales tax,” and “allowing an income tax that is adjusted in accordance with ability to pay”). Id., at 27–28. To suggest that speech on such matters is not of great public concern—or that it is not directed at the“public square,” post, at 16 (KAGAN, J., dissenting)—is to deny reality.​

Okay, so, according to Alito, the Union took a particular position regarding taxation, who to tax, how much to tax, which tax exemptions to abolish, and such speech expresses views which are certainly a particular point of view on a matter of public concern (who to tax, who to tax more, who to tax less, exemptions, etcetera). The use of agency fees from non-members for the above conduct illuminated by Alito, amounts to compelling people to financially contribute to speech expressing particular points of view on the important issue of budget and taxation. Hence, it is compelled speech.

In the case of fair share dues, the "agency fees" are not used for compelled speech. So there is no logical reason to rule that fair share dues constitute compelled speech.

According to Alito and the majority, the fees from nonmembers were used by the union for the speech discussed above in the opinion. Hence, compelled speech.

 

[laughing dog]

Here is an important passage from the majority decision. This passage is important because it is a fact the majority uses to show A.) The union is engaging in speech on important societal issue, indeed advocating a particular point of view, and B.) the union is using agency fees of nonmembers for that speech.

Illinois, like some other States and a number of counties and cities around the country, suffers from severe budget problems. As of 2013, Illinois had nearly $160 billion in unfunded pension and retiree healthcare liabilities.11 By 2017, that number had only grown, and the State was grappling with $15 billion in unpaid bills.12 We are told that a “quarter of the budget is now devoted to payingdown” those liabilities.13 These problems and others led Moody’s and S&P to downgrade Illinois’ credit rating to“one step above junk”—the “lowest ranking on record for a
U. S. state.

The Governor, on one side, and public-sector unions, on the other, disagree sharply about what to do about these problems. The State claims that its employment-related debt is “‘squeezing core programs in education, public safety, and human services, in addition to limiting [the State’s] ability to pay [its] bills.’” Securities Act of 1933 Release No. 9389, 105 S. E. C. Docket 3381 (2013). It therefore “told the Union that it would attempt to address th[e financial] crisis, at least in part, through collective bargaining.” Board Decision 12–13. And “the State’s desire for savings” in fact “dr[o]ve [its] bargaining” positions on matters such as health-insurance benefits and holiday, overtime, and promotion policies. Id., at 13; Illinois Dept. of Central Management Servs. v. AFSCME, Council 31, No. S–CB–16–17 etc., 33 PERI ¶67 (ILRB Dec.13, 2016) (ALJ Decision), pp. 26–28, 63–66, 224.

But when the State offered cost-saving proposals on these issues, the Union countered with very different suggestions. Among other things, it advocated wage and tax increases, cutting spending “to Wall Street financial institutions,” and reforms to Illinois’ pension and tax systems(such as closing “corporate tax loopholes,” “[e]xpanding the base of the state sales tax,” and “allowing an income tax that is adjusted in accordance with ability to pay”). Id., at 27–28. To suggest that speech on such matters is not of great public concern—or that it is not directed at the“public square,” post, at 16 (KAGAN, J., dissenting)—is to deny reality.​

Okay, so, according to Alito, the Union took a particular position regarding taxation, who to tax, how much to tax, which tax exemptions to abolish, and such speech expresses views which are certainly a particular point of view on a matter of public concern (who to tax, who to tax more, who to tax less, exemptions, etcetera). The use of agency fees from non-members for the above conduct illuminated by Alito, amounts to compelling people to financially contribute to speech expressing particular points of view on the important issue of budget and taxation. Hence, it is compelled speech.

In the case of fair share dues, the "agency fees" are not used for compelled speech. So there is no logical reason to rule that fair share dues constitute compelled speech.

According to Alito and the majority, the fees from nonmembers were used by the union for the speech discussed above in the opinion. Hence, compelled speech.

I realize this is difficult, but fair share dues means those fees are not supposed to be used. If the fair share fees are not set properly (i.e. too high so that they fund compelled speech), the logical remedy is to have the fees reduced to the proper level, not to rule them unconstitutional. Now, I am not familiar with Illinois law, but in Mn, any person in a public sector bargaining unit can ask and get that the union provide information on revenue, fees and spending to an independent source to justify or modify the fair share dues.

 

[James Madison]

According to Alito and the majority, the fees from nonmembers were used by the union for the speech discussed above in the opinion. Hence, compelled speech.

I realize this is difficult, but fair share dues means those fees are not supposed to be used. If the fair share fees are not set properly (i.e. too high so that they fund compelled speech), the logical remedy is to have the fees reduced to the proper level, not to rule them unconstitutional. Now, I am not familiar with Illinois law, but in Mn, any person in a public sector bargaining unit can ask and get that the union provide information on revenue, fees and spending to an independent source to justify or modify the fair share dues.

The facts of the case are the facts of the case. The facts of the case before SCOTUS were established by the parties before the trial court. According to those facts, the Union was using the fees from nonmembers for the speech outlined by Alito. According to the facts of the case, it had nothing to do with a proper level set for those fees.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Opoponax]

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.

Yep. Maybe to further clarify, the act of giving money for the purpose of X ideal might be better termed as a speech activity, which is subject to the same standards of other speech depending on the context (e.g. the common understanding of free speech vs. time, place, manner regulations vs. unprotected speech (e.g. incitement or obscenity)).

The possible result of the decision though is probably more far reaching than 1AM standards, which aren't going to change. That is, what does this do to unions? But as to the matter of speech, the expenditure of it for the given purposes is clearly a speech activity. This is not to say that a case like Citizens United can't be overturned* because speech can be restricted when it's necessary to achieve a compelling government purpose, and when no other less restrictive means are available.

For example, the argument could go that it's necessary to reverse Citizens United because corporations/superpacs, which are not natural persons, can give so much money, derived from unknown sources, that it subverts the rights of millions of people by diminishing their voice in elections. The compelling interest is national security and the franchise. Less restrictive means are available by limiting campaign contributions to, e.g. X amount of dollars/known sources, etc. Thus, the government can only achieve its goals of national security and enfranchisement by reversing the decision.

That's not to say that's a winning argument, and something along those lines was probably made in that case. It would be more compelling now than before that particular decision.

*Let's just pretend we live in an alternate universe for a moment where this could happen.

 

[PyramidHead]

Inasmuch as the state already levies taxes from individuals and uses that revenue for speech the individuals may not endorse, how is this decision consistent with the general societal requirement that people contribute to a system they benefit from, even if they do not agree with every part of it?