Free Speech and Nonmember Union Agency Fees

[James Madison]

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?

Because a governmental entity is not using the money but a non-governmental entity is using the money.

 

[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?

Because a governmental entity is not using the money but a non-governmental entity is using the money.

Forgive me, but doesn't this:

The State’s extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public-sector employees violates the First Amendment.

indicate that the state is doing the extraction and the spending? What non-governmental entity is using government-extracted money in the public sector?

 

[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.

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

That puts you well ahead of Canada on this matter. So props for that.

It does still leave people being forced to join organizations claiming to speak for them while endorsing political parties that they oppose though doesn't it? Or can you opt out of union membership completely and not be barred from taking a job with an employer at a business with unionized employees?

In Canada we have not only businesses that you have to join a union to be allowed to work at, but entire industries that way. And those unions are not shy about endorsing politocal parties, and here tbey can use your union dues to make donations to those parties.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Then fair share fees properly set (which, according to you, were not part of the case) ought to be still constitutional.

 

[James Madison]

Forgive me, but doesn't this:

The State’s extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public-sector employees violates the First Amendment.

indicate that the state is doing the extraction and the spending? What non-governmental entity is using government-extracted money in the public sector?

The state is not spending the money but the Union. The Union is spending the money on speech. The Illinois law requiring the extraction of money to the Union, which the Union then spends on speech, is the compelled aspect of speech by the State of Illinois.

 

[Bomb#20]

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 would be an insane argument to make. Citizens United upheld the BCRA disclosure requirements. If there's still an issue with money from unknown sources, overturning CU can't be necessary because Congress already has the authority to close the remaining loopholes.

 

[ZiprHead]

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

That puts you well ahead of Canada on this matter. So props for that.

It does still leave people being forced to join organizations claiming to speak for them while endorsing political parties that they oppose though doesn't it? Or can you opt out of union membership completely and not be barred from taking a job with an employer at a business with unionized employees?

In Canada we have not only businesses that you have to join a union to be allowed to work at, but entire industries that way. And those unions are not shy about endorsing politocal parties, and here tbey can use your union dues to make donations to those parties.

In right-to-work states, yes. More colloquially it's known as right-to-work-for-less.

Might you explain why you have a problem with what you wrote above about Canadian labor unions since it seems Canadians are much better paid and have better working condition than USAians? What your unions are doing seems to work quite well. That's why conservatives here want to tear them apart.

 

[James Madison]

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.

Then fair share fees properly set (which, according to you, were not part of the case) ought to be still constitutional.

The facts of the case, and the case itself, simply did not include any question, focus, analysis, discussion, as to the levels of "fair share fees" or whether "fair share fees properly set" do not implicate the 1st Amendment. The facts of the case were an Illinois law required agency fees to be paid to a Union by nonmembers, those fees were used by the Union for speech, which resulted in nonmembers being compelled to financially support Union speech. The case was about speech compulsion and agency fees, not the levels of "fair share fees" or "fair share fees properly set."

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Then fair share fees properly set (which, according to you, were not part of the case) ought to be still constitutional.

The facts of the case, and the case itself, simply did not include any question, focus, analysis, discussion, as to the levels of "fair share fees" or whether "fair share fees properly set" do not implicate the 1st Amendment. The facts of the case were an Illinois law required agency fees to be paid to a Union by nonmembers, those fees were used by the Union for speech, which resulted in nonmembers being compelled to financially support Union speech. The case was about speech compulsion and agency fees, not the levels of "fair share fees" or "fair share fees properly set."

Of course it was. If the agency fees had not funded any "compelled speech", there would not have been a case. So the level of them was part of the case. The ruling effectively threw the baby out with the bath water.

 

[James Madison]

The facts of the case, and the case itself, simply did not include any question, focus, analysis, discussion, as to the levels of "fair share fees" or whether "fair share fees properly set" do not implicate the 1st Amendment. The facts of the case were an Illinois law required agency fees to be paid to a Union by nonmembers, those fees were used by the Union for speech, which resulted in nonmembers being compelled to financially support Union speech. The case was about speech compulsion and agency fees, not the levels of "fair share fees" or "fair share fees properly set."

Of course it was. If the agency fees had not funded any "compelled speech", there would not have been a case. So the level of them was part of the case. The ruling effectively threw the baby out with the bath water.

Sorry man, there were no facts about the "levels" in the majority opinion, the majority opinion did not rest upon any "levels," the majority opinion did not reference "levels," and their decision did not focus upon "levels." But feel free to point to me where in the majority opinion they discuss "levels" of "fair share fees." I could have, after all, missed it.

 

[Bomb#20]

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).

Even though money isn't speech, your money is being taken to support something you do not support, which does mean you are being forced to say something you don't wish to say. If you pay somebody to say your neighbor is an arsonist, he can sue you for slander the same as if you said it yourself, even though money is not speech.

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

That puts you well ahead of Canada on this matter. So props for that.

It does still leave people being forced to join organizations claiming to speak for them while endorsing political parties that they oppose though doesn't it? Or can you opt out of union membership completely and not be barred from taking a job with an employer at a business with unionized employees?

In Canada we have not only businesses that you have to join a union to be allowed to work at, but entire industries that way. And those unions are not shy about endorsing politocal parties, and here tbey can use your union dues to make donations to those parties.

Is that the law in Canada now? Woohoo! Progress! Congratulations on taking a huge step toward becoming a civilized country! At least the bastards finally give you the option of joining the union!

Thirty-odd years ago, my mother was fired from her job in Ontario (with the sentence suspended for a month so she could train her replacement) because the union ordered the employer to reclassify her job as a union job and give it to a union member. The employer submitted. She asked to join the union, but was refused because the union already had a member who wanted her job.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Then fair share fees properly set (which, according to you, were not part of the case) ought to be still constitutional.

The facts of the case, and the case itself, simply did not include any question, focus, analysis, discussion, as to the levels of "fair share fees" or whether "fair share fees properly set" do not implicate the 1st Amendment. The facts of the case were an Illinois law required agency fees to be paid to a Union by nonmembers, those fees were used by the Union for speech, which resulted in nonmembers being compelled to financially support Union speech.

This is where I get lost. Is the non-member benefiting from said speech? And when we say speech, we are talking about "collective bargaining". The "speech" is compelled only in the sense that they can't vote on a contract. But they would benefit from the contract.

The majority seems to be saying, 'This isn't necessary anymore, because we say so. Some states do it differently, therefore other states shouldn't compel otherwise.' As if this is only allowable if it is a last resort. SCOTUS just rules whatever the heck it wants. Precedence... what's that? It isn't broken, let's break it!

It is also notdisputed that the State may require that a union serve asexclusive bargaining agent for its employees—itself asignificant impingement on associational freedoms thatwould not be tolerated in other contexts.

Oh, we understand why Abood exists, but you know... fuck it anyway! That's a paraphrase. What they actually said is:

We simply drawthe line at allowing the government to go further still andrequire all employees to support the union irrespective ofwhether they share its views.

Are all employees supporting the Union "speech"? Aren't they allowed to vote against a collective bargaining agreement?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Even though money isn't speech, your money is being taken to support something you do not support, which does mean you are being forced to say something you don't wish to say. If you pay somebody to say your neighbor is an arsonist, he can sue you for slander the same as if you said it yourself, even though money is not speech.

This is bullshit. The majority say they understand the necessity for EXCLUSIVE collective bargaining. How can you be for exclusive collective bargaining, but then pivot and say, but speech shouldn't be compelled. You can't have it both ways (which is why I think axing collective bargaining will be the next goal). SCOTUS is telling the plaintiff:
'Good news, bad news. You can't be compelled to support union based collective bargaining. However, you can't bargain on your own with your employer.'

How in the heck does that make sense. SCOTUS told the plantiff, your speech can't be compelled, so we aren't allowing you to have any.

 

[laughing dog]

The facts of the case, and the case itself, simply did not include any question, focus, analysis, discussion, as to the levels of "fair share fees" or whether "fair share fees properly set" do not implicate the 1st Amendment. The facts of the case were an Illinois law required agency fees to be paid to a Union by nonmembers, those fees were used by the Union for speech, which resulted in nonmembers being compelled to financially support Union speech. The case was about speech compulsion and agency fees, not the levels of "fair share fees" or "fair share fees properly set."

Of course it was. If the agency fees had not funded any "compelled speech", there would not have been a case. So the level of them was part of the case. The ruling effectively threw the baby out with the bath water.

Sorry man, there were no facts about the "levels" in the majority opinion, the majority opinion did not rest upon any "levels," the majority opinion did not reference "levels," and their decision did not focus upon "levels." But feel free to point to me where in the majority opinion they discuss "levels" of "fair share fees." I could have, after all, missed it.

I understand completely. If the SCOTUS opinion does not have specific word, then the general idea or issue behind it does not exist from a pedantic point of view.

The fact that the level of the agency fee might be relevant and important from a logical and social point of view is irrelevant to a pedantic argument.

 

[James Madison]

Sorry man, there were no facts about the "levels" in the majority opinion, the majority opinion did not rest upon any "levels," the majority opinion did not reference "levels," and their decision did not focus upon "levels." But feel free to point to me where in the majority opinion they discuss "levels" of "fair share fees." I could have, after all, missed it.

I understand completely. If the SCOTUS opinion does not have specific word, then the general idea or issue behind it does not exist from a pedantic point of view.

The fact that the level of the agency fee might be relevant and important from a logical and social point of view is irrelevant to a pedantic argument.

The "general idea or issue" of levels for "fair share fees" is not implied or suggested by the majority opinion. Quite simply, it was not something the Court considered. However, you are most perfectly capable of reading the opinion and citing to those parts which you say are about fee levels, but really aren't about fee levels.

The problem has been your misinterpretation of what the Court said and then blame others for your misinterpretation.

Just cite to the opinion regarding fee levels. Easy task.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

In Canada we have not only businesses that you have to join a union to be allowed to work at, but entire industries that way. And those unions are not shy about endorsing politocal parties, and here tbey can use your union dues to make donations to those parties.

In right-to-work states, yes. More colloquially it's known as right-to-work-for-less.

Might you explain why you have a problem with what you wrote above about Canadian labor unions since it seems Canadians are much better paid and have better working condition than USAians? What your unions are doing seems to work quite well. That's why conservatives here want to tear them apart.

I take issue with being forced to join any organization of any sort, union or otherwise, against my will that then claims to speak for me and and extracts money from me for "dues" they spend on things I disagree with. Taxes and citizenship are the only case of that I can really stomach. It at least has some legitimacy in my mind (I'm not a fundamentalist libertarian).

Unions in Ontario (and especially in Quebec) actually go way too far and can be very abusive towards "members" (who are forced to join, have to deal with seniority oriented rather than merit oriented job prospects once in the union, can't bring grievances on their own outside the union, etc) and workplaces can get unionized way too easily here and are hard to uncertify. All you need to certify one here is an off day where 2 temps show up while all others are away, and these two temps who won't be there the next day sign union certification cards. The full time employees who were on a holiday (or maybe a weekend) are then stuck with joining a union (usually one that encompasses many workplaces and not just their own) whether they want to or not. Unions play all sorts of tricks like this with salters here, and union bosses get paid well for being union bosses.

My understanding is that while unions are too powerful and abusive towards workers in Canada, the opposite is true in the USA. From all I have read there, your unions are neutered and in some of your states have no ability to collectively bargain at all. Its quite a drastic difference, and I have no discomfort being firmly on one side in one country and firmly on the other in the other. Our conservative politicians also tend to be to the left of your Democrats.

 

[James Madison]

The facts of the case, and the case itself, simply did not include any question, focus, analysis, discussion, as to the levels of "fair share fees" or whether "fair share fees properly set" do not implicate the 1st Amendment. The facts of the case were an Illinois law required agency fees to be paid to a Union by nonmembers, those fees were used by the Union for speech, which resulted in nonmembers being compelled to financially support Union speech.

This is where I get lost. Is the non-member benefiting from said speech? And when we say speech, we are talking about "collective bargaining". The "speech" is compelled only in the sense that they can't vote on a contract. But they would benefit from the contract.

Below, Alito explains the speech involved by the union.

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.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Thirty-odd years ago, my mother was fired from her job in Ontario (with the sentence suspended for a month so she could train her replacement) because the union ordered the employer to reclassify her job as a union job and give it to a union member. The employer submitted. She asked to join the union, but was refused because the union already had a member who wanted her job.

I've not heard of that happening lately, but I wold not be surprised if it did.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Did the ruling go too far?

It seems to me it comes down to whether you can come up with a good accounting for what is truly collective bargaining cost vs what is political speech.

Consider the issue for advocating about tax policy. In a sense that's part of bargaining--it's attempting to make more money available to pay the unions with. We have a world that is grey but it must be divided up into black and white. That doesn't work.

 

[James Madison]

Did the ruling go too far?

It seems to me it comes down to whether you can come up with a good accounting for what is truly collective bargaining cost vs what is political speech.

Consider the issue for advocating about tax policy. In a sense that's part of bargaining--it's attempting to make more money available to pay the unions with. We have a world that is grey but it must be divided up into black and white. That doesn't work.

And Alito’s argument that Union speech regarding tax policy is political speech, indeed speech on an important societal issue, even when a part of bargaining.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk