Free Speech and Nonmember Union Agency Fees

[ZiprHead]

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.

How do temps become union members? You don't become a union member until you've passed the probationary period.

Not to mention a vote has to be taken and all eligible employees are notified of the vote.

ETA: Okay, I've done some research on what it takes to get a union in in a workplace in Canada. Since you said Quebec was the worst, I concentrated there.

All I can say about what you wrote above is that it is pure, unmitigated claptrap (I wanted to call it something worse but I wanted to stay polite). I don't know where you got your ideas about how to get a union into a workplace came from, maybe an anti-union source, but you are flat out wrong.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

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

Yeah, but he's wrong. The only way to fund any of this is through tax revenue. When negotiating the benefits, you are in fact setting tax policy. This isn't some earth shattering discovery, so how does Alito propose the state of IL pay for benefits?

aa

 

[Underseer]

Well sure, if we empower unions, that might give worthless commoners a voice instead of just letting the economic elites call all the shots. Unions are a possible check on the power of the aristocracy and must be removed by any means necessary.

 

[ronburgundy]

So, how does this ruling not make nearly all taxation a violation of "free speech"? Nearly everything the government does with that money (from waging wars to paying for infrastructure to allow Trump's public speeches) is as much "speech" as what Unions use their money for.

 

[Elixir]

I take issue with being forced to join any organization of any sort

Then don't take a union job. Nobody is forcing you. You could always emigrate to the US (assuming you're white) and work free of such shackles - for less.

My understanding is that while unions are too powerful and abusive towards workers in Canada, the opposite is true in the USA.

When I was younger I worked as a heliarc welder in a union (IAM) shop, and was quite resentful of the dues they were stealing against my will. But that was a long time ago. Can't really speak to the state of the unions in Canada, but all indicators here are that the unions have been stripped of almost all power.
I never felt that IAM was abusive though - can you expand on that a little? You mean like Jimmy Hoffa thug "abusive" or is there a more polite, Canadian version of abusive?

 

[laughing dog]

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.

I never said it did. That is my obvious point. But the fact the Court did not consider it, does not mean it did not exist or that the Court was correct in ignoring it.

Now, will that end your boring pedantic straw men?

 

[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

Yeah, but he's wrong. The only way to fund any of this is through tax revenue. When negotiating the benefits, you are in fact setting tax policy. This isn't some earth shattering discovery, so how does Alito propose the state of IL pay for benefits?

aa

The finding for state benefits wasn’t the issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

So, how does this ruling not make nearly all taxation a violation of "free speech"? Nearly everything the government does with that money (from waging wars to paying for infrastructure to allow Trump's public speeches) is as much "speech" as what Unions use their money for.

Because the government wasn’t using the money for speech in this case but instead the Union. The issue wasn’t government using money for government speech or speech by the government. The issue was a union using nonmembers agency fees, which are compelled by law, for speech by the union.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Opoponax]

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.

Let me quote myself:

For example...

Next, that is the standard and basic analysis of free speech under the strict scrutiny standard.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Not to mention a vote has to be taken and all eligible employees are notified of the vote.

"Notified" can be pretty fast and loose, and there having beenimproper notification is indeed one way to apply for decertification... which usually takes over a year to make happen.

Here is how it works in Ontario:

The union can apply for certification in your workplace. A vote is called as soon as 5 days after the application is filed. THE MAJORITY OF WORKERS WHO ARE THERE AT THAT TIME TO VOTE, even if it is just 2 workers out of over 100 employees and they both vote for certification, decides if the certification goes through. So, like happened with the company we saw it happen to, find a window in which there is a short shutdown of operations so the vast majority of employees (in this case all but 2 that were brought in on temporary assignment), file the applicatoin, hold the vote 5 days later, then when the 100+ workers return, they return to a unionized workplace. They then have to spend well over a year (not 5 days) to uncertify it, after those 2 workers that brought it in have left the company.

If you think that is good, I don't know what to say to that.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I take issue with being forced to join any organization of any sort

Then don't take a union job. Nobody is forcing you.

Entire industries get gobbled up by unions here. If you work in some particular industries in some particular areas of the country, you would have to go back to school and learn a whole different trade to avoid unions. And unions come in based on some ridiculously underhanded tactics, and are hard to get rid of even when the majority of the workers don't want them (or never did).

You could always emigrate to the US (assuming you're white) and work free of such shackles - for less.

I'm not white, so the US won't take me (? lol)

Can't really speak to the state of the unions in Canada, but all indicators here are that the unions have been stripped of almost all power.

That does seem to be the case in the USA. The unions in the USA need a boost. In Canada they need to be reigned in.

I never felt that IAM was abusive though - can you expand on that a little? You mean like Jimmy Hoffa thug "abusive" or is there a more polite, Canadian version of abusive?

Oh I don't mean they go around breaking legs or anything. They just take control away from you, take money from you, keep you from getting promotions because of seniority over merit, and refuse to bring greivances for you against employers (that they can be in cahoots with sometimes) while denying you the right to bring action against the employer yourself because you are in the union that you never wanted to join.

 

[Opoponax]

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.

I never said it did. That is my obvious point. But the fact the Court did not consider it, does not mean it did not exist or that the Court was correct in ignoring it.

If the Court didn't consider it, then it probably wasn't part of either side's argument. And if no one argued about, it must not have been in issue. I think maybe you're looking at possible implications that may be relevant to a related issue, or that may now become more relevant following this decision, but that weren't at issue in this particular case.

The issue here is whether a state entity, or an entity so closely affiliated with the state that the effect is the same, is forcing people to pay dues, with the result of those dues amounting to state action improperly regulating a speech activity. And it seems like it is.

There will be fallout from this decision, but that fallout wasn't at issue here.

 

[ZiprHead]

Not to mention a vote has to be taken and all eligible employees are notified of the vote.

"Notified" can be pretty fast and loose, and there having beenimproper notification is indeed one way to apply for decertification... which usually takes over a year to make happen.

Here is how it works in Ontario:

The union can apply for certification in your workplace. A vote is called as soon as 5 days after the application is filed. THE MAJORITY OF WORKERS WHO ARE THERE AT THAT TIME TO VOTE, even if it is just 2 workers out of over 100 employees and they both vote for certification, decides if the certification goes through. So, like happened with the company we saw it happen to, find a window in which there is a short shutdown of operations so the vast majority of employees (in this case all but 2 that were brought in on temporary assignment), file the applicatoin, hold the vote 5 days later, then when the 100+ workers return, they return to a unionized workplace. They then have to spend well over a year (not 5 days) to uncertify it, after those 2 workers that brought it in have left the company.

If you think that is good, I don't know what to say to that.

And again you are spreading bull shit. Getting a union in Canada is very similar to the United States. Employees must sign a card expressing their desire for a union (cost is 2 dollars per card paid by the employee, BTW.). If more than 50 percent of the employees sign that card, they get their union. 35 to 50 percent signage and the union can request and maybe will and maybe not be granted the right to hold a vote.

And I also call bullshit on your example until you provide a citation. It sounds totally ridiculous that only two people would show up to vote after at least 35 percent of the employees signed cards expressing a desire for a union. Not to mention all within a five day window. Nothing the government does gets done in five days, even in Canada.

To decertify is the same process.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Yeah, but he's wrong. The only way to fund any of this is through tax revenue. When negotiating the benefits, you are in fact setting tax policy. This isn't some earth shattering discovery, so how does Alito propose the state of IL pay for benefits?

aa

The finding for state benefits wasn’t the issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right, but it was used as the rationale to defend the decision on the issue, no? Why, if not relevant? And does this not count as precedent for all public sector negotiating?

aa

 

[James Madison]

Yeah, but he's wrong. The only way to fund any of this is through tax revenue. When negotiating the benefits, you are in fact setting tax policy. This isn't some earth shattering discovery, so how does Alito propose the state of IL pay for benefits?

aa

The finding for state benefits wasn’t the issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right, but it was used as the rationale to defend the decision on the issue, no? Why, if not relevant? And does this not count as precedent for all public sector negotiating?

aa

The issue of funding, specifically how to fund through tax breaks, how to find by suggesting who to tax and how much to tax, was used by the majority as evidence of speech by the union. The majority also found agency fees by nonmembers, required by law, were used by the union for the speech.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[laughing dog]

Here's a hypothetical. Instead of a law, suppose the agency fees were part of the labor contract (as is the case with a private employer). Would that still constitute "compelled speech"?

 

[James Madison]

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.

I never said it did. That is my obvious point. But the fact the Court did not consider it, does not mean it did not exist or that the Court was correct in ignoring it.

Now, will that end your boring pedantic straw men?

You previously said:

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 levels was not part of the case. You said it was above. No Strawman. No pedantry.

Will you cease with your boring and mistaken comments about what was part of the case?

 

[laughing dog]

You previously said:

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 levels was not part of the case. You said it was above. No Strawman. No pedantry.

It was logically part of the case. Sorry, I was not clearer. But, pedantry it was.

Will you cease with your boring and mistaken comments about what was part of the case?

I forgot that refusing to read outside of a literal interpretation leads to your boring pedantry.

 

[James Madison]

It was logically part of the case. Sorry, I was not clearer. But, pedantry it was.

Will you cease with your boring and mistaken comments about what was part of the case?

I forgot that refusing to read outside of a literal interpretation leads to your boring pedantry.

It was logically part of the case.

Interestingly enough, the levels of fair shares appear nowhere in the case. If levels of fair shares were “logically part of the case,” then fair share levels would appear somewhere in the case. They never appear. They logically aren’t part of the case.

I forgot that refusing to read outside of a literal interpretation leads to your boring pedantry

Well, pedantry over your stupidity. At least the pedantry is consistent with what is said in the case. Your dumb remarks aren’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[laughing dog]

Interestingly enough, the levels of fair shares appear nowhere in the case. If levels of fair shares were “logically part of the case,” then fair share levels would appear somewhere in the case. They never appear. They logically aren’t part of the case.

That assumes levels of ability and focus that have yet to proven.

Well, pedantry over your stupidity. At least the pedantry is consistent with what is said in the case. Your dumb remarks aren’t.

Another example of pedantry mixed with straw men. Consistency not cogency is your strong point.

I understand that you only wish to argue the actual text and the actual law, but this is not a legal forum. The fact you or the SCOTUS opinion seem incapable or unwilling to acknowledge the social, political, and logical issues associated with this ruling does not mean they do not exist.