Free Speech and Nonmember Union Agency Fees

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why do these labor unions need to be paid "dues" from workers?

Couldn't Democrats in New York, Illinois, California, etc., circumvent this Supreme Court decision?

Why couldn't the Democrat-controlled legislature just pay the money directly to the public employee union, as a necessary administrative cost? Then, just eliminate the "dues" paid by any workers.

They think the union performs a necessary public service, taking care of the employees, causing the workers to do a better job. So why don't they just pay the union directly for its service?

 

[Bomb#20]

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 bull... 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

Who are you talking to? I don't recall saying either I'm for exclusive collective bargaining or that speech shouldn't be compelled. Are you calling what I wrote BS, or are you just using me as a launchpad for an anti-SCOTUS speech?

(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.

I can't speak for the SCOTUS; but they have a track record of nuance, shades of gray, and finely-graded levels of scrutiny. It looks to me like they're telling the plaintiff, your speech can be compelled, provided it's only compelled a little bit and only on tightly limited topics.

I think if the union had said to itself, "We're ripping off nonmembers, so we have to be very circumspect about how we spend the proceeds if we want to be allowed to keep getting away with that.", and then its conversation with the State of Illinois had gone like this:

Union: Pay our people more money.

State: We can't; we're out of money.

Union: Bummer. Still, pay our people more money.

State: Where the heck are we supposed to get the extra money?

Union: We really couldn't speak to that. Get it somewhere, or cut spending elsewhere, or repeal arithmetic. It's not our department and we don't really care. Just pay our people more money.​

then the SCOTUS would have said the plaintiffs' speech can be compelled that much. The union pushed its luck too far.

 

[James Madison]

Couldn't Democrats in New York, Illinois, California, etc., circumvent this Supreme Court decision?

Why couldn't the Democrat-controlled legislature just pay the money directly to the public employee union, as a necessary administrative cost? Then, just eliminate the "dues" paid by any workers.

They think the union performs a necessary public service, taking care of the employees, causing the workers to do a better job. So why don't they just pay the union directly for its service?

I think your proposal would not be prohibited by the Janus decision.

Eugene Volokh had a similar idea.

It [state legislatures] would cut the employees' salary by $500/year, and then pay $500/year/employee, straight from state coffers, to the union as a "contract administration fee"—just as it may pay other entities that provide important services to the government (cleaning, accounting, insurance processing, etc.). The employees would still have a take-home paycheck of $49,500, as before. Illinois is still paying $50,000/employee, as before. And the union is still getting $500/employee as before (plus whatever extra dues people who join the union choose to pay, dues that could then be used for other purposes, such as political advocacy

https://reason.com/volokh/2018/06/27/the-limited-effects-of-the-supreme-court



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[laughing dog]

I can't speak for the SCOTUS; but they have a track record of nuance, shades of gray, and finely-graded levels of scrutiny. It looks to me like they're telling the plaintiff, your speech can be compelled, provided it's only compelled a little bit and only on tightly limited topics.

It is too bad they did not carry that nuance and finely-graded levels of scrutiny to their decision by ruling that agency fees that fund compelled speech above the acceptable level are unconstitutional but agency fees that do not meet that standard are constitutional.

 

[dismal]

Couldn't Democrats in New York, Illinois, California, etc., circumvent this Supreme Court decision?

Why couldn't the Democrat-controlled legislature just pay the money directly to the public employee union, as a necessary administrative cost? Then, just eliminate the "dues" paid by any workers.

They think the union performs a necessary public service, taking care of the employees, causing the workers to do a better job. So why don't they just pay the union directly for its service?

I think your proposal would not be prohibited by the Janus decision.

Eugene Volokh had a similar idea.

It [state legislatures] would cut the employees' salary by $500/year, and then pay $500/year/employee, straight from state coffers, to the union as a "contract administration fee"—just as it may pay other entities that provide important services to the government (cleaning, accounting, insurance processing, etc.). The employees would still have a take-home paycheck of $49,500, as before. Illinois is still paying $50,000/employee, as before. And the union is still getting $500/employee as before (plus whatever extra dues people who join the union choose to pay, dues that could then be used for other purposes, such as political advocacy

https://reason.com/volokh/2018/06/27/the-limited-effects-of-the-supreme-court



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But then you have the the state openly paying an entity that serves no purpose but to drive up the cost and drive down the efficiency of services provided to the state.

It gets harder to maintain the charade.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

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.

When the subject is minimum wage, the phrase "get a different job" is considered proof that the speaker wants to oppress the workers. But when it is a union, that is somehow entirely different.

 

[Bomb#20]

I can't speak for the SCOTUS; but they have a track record of nuance, shades of gray, and finely-graded levels of scrutiny. It looks to me like they're telling the plaintiff, your speech can be compelled, provided it's only compelled a little bit and only on tightly limited topics.

It is too bad they did not carry that nuance and finely-graded levels of scrutiny to their decision by ruling that agency fees that fund compelled speech above the acceptable level are unconstitutional but agency fees that do not meet that standard are constitutional.

They're a court. Their job is to answer the question asked, not some different question they might think is a better one to ask. As Opoponax points out, what's an acceptable level of agency fees probably wasn't part of either side's argument.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I can't speak for the SCOTUS; but they have a track record of nuance, shades of gray, and finely-graded levels of scrutiny. It looks to me like they're telling the plaintiff, your speech can be compelled, provided it's only compelled a little bit and only on tightly limited topics.

It is too bad they did not carry that nuance and finely-graded levels of scrutiny to their decision by ruling that agency fees that fund compelled speech above the acceptable level are unconstitutional but agency fees that do not meet that standard are constitutional.

They're a court. Their job is to answer the question asked, not some different question they might think is a better one to ask.

They already had ruled on it 41 years ago... so if they are planning on shredding 41 years of precedence, they need to ask more questions.

 

[James Madison]

I can't speak for the SCOTUS; but they have a track record of nuance, shades of gray, and finely-graded levels of scrutiny. It looks to me like they're telling the plaintiff, your speech can be compelled, provided it's only compelled a little bit and only on tightly limited topics.

It is too bad they did not carry that nuance and finely-graded levels of scrutiny to their decision by ruling that agency fees that fund compelled speech above the acceptable level are unconstitutional but agency fees that do not meet that standard are constitutional.

They're a court. Their job is to answer the question asked, not some different question they might think is a better one to ask. As Opoponax points out, what's an acceptable level of agency fees probably wasn't part of either side's argument.

It wasn't, neither was it a fact mentioned, referenced, suggested, or relied upon by the Court in the majority opinion. This has been told to him before, numerous times.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

They're a court. Their job is to answer the question asked, not some different question they might think is a better one to ask. As Opoponax points out, what's an acceptable level of agency fees probably wasn't part of either side's argument.

It wasn't, neither was it a fact mentioned, referenced, suggested, or relied upon by the Court in the majority opinion. This has been told to him before, numerous times.

Did the majority explain how they managed to find spending money in dues to help provide a stable basis for the Union to perform its primary task is unacceptable compelled speech, but being forced into the collective bargaining is acceptable compelled speech?

 

[laughing dog]

I can't speak for the SCOTUS; but they have a track record of nuance, shades of gray, and finely-graded levels of scrutiny. It looks to me like they're telling the plaintiff, your speech can be compelled, provided it's only compelled a little bit and only on tightly limited topics.

It is too bad they did not carry that nuance and finely-graded levels of scrutiny to their decision by ruling that agency fees that fund compelled speech above the acceptable level are unconstitutional but agency fees that do not meet that standard are constitutional.

They're a court. Their job is to answer the question asked, not some different question they might think is a better one to ask. As Opoponax points out, what's an acceptable level of agency fees probably wasn't part of either side's argument.

The Court had the option of ruling that agency fees are not acceptable when there is compelled speech. That has absolutely nothing to do with an acceptable level of agency fees.

Instead of taking a nuanced gray appear approach that it has favored in other cases, it decided to take black and white approach. I strongly suspect that choice was ideologically driven, not legally driven.

 

[James Madison]

They're a court. Their job is to answer the question asked, not some different question they might think is a better one to ask. As Opoponax points out, what's an acceptable level of agency fees probably wasn't part of either side's argument.

It wasn't, neither was it a fact mentioned, referenced, suggested, or relied upon by the Court in the majority opinion. This has been told to him before, numerous times.

Did the majority explain how they managed to find spending money in dues to help provide a stable basis for the Union to perform its primary task is unacceptable compelled speech, but being forced into the collective bargaining is acceptable compelled speech?

The facts of the case involved collective bargaining, and it was during the process of collective bargaining that the compelled speech transpired.

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 taxincreases, cutting spending “to Wall Street financial institutions,” and reforms to Illinois’ pension and tax systems(such as closing “corporate tax loopholes,” “[e]xpanding thebase 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.

In addition to affecting how public money is spent,union speech in collective bargaining addresses many other important matters. As the examples offered by respondents’ own amici show, unions express views on awide range of subjects—education, child welfare, healthcare, and minority rights, to name a few. See, e.g., Brief for American Federation of Teachers as Amicus Curiae 15–27; Brief for Child Protective Service Workers et al. as Amici Curiae 5–13; Brief for Human Rights Campaign et al. as Amici Curiae 10–17; Brief for National Women’s Law Center et al. as Amici Curiae 14–30. What unions have to say on these matters in the context of collective bargaining is of great public importance.


​

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Did the majority explain how they managed to find spending money in dues to help provide a stable basis for the Union to perform its primary task is unacceptable compelled speech, but being forced into the collective bargaining is acceptable compelled speech?

The facts of the case involved collective bargaining, and it was during the process of collective bargaining that the compelled speech transpired.

Exclusive collective bargaining in itself is compelled speech, and the majority affirmed at least that portion of the previous case. Janus under the law, still has no ability to bargain on their own regardless of paying full dues, partial dues, or no dues. That hasn't changed.

Governor said, 'We ain't have no money'.
Union replied, 'You can get the money'.
SCOTUS says, 'That is political speech! That is unconstitutionally compelled speech!!!!'

We umm... of course it is political... the boss is the State Government you twits.

 

[James Madison]

Did the majority explain how they managed to find spending money in dues to help provide a stable basis for the Union to perform its primary task is unacceptable compelled speech, but being forced into the collective bargaining is acceptable compelled speech?

The facts of the case involved collective bargaining, and it was during the process of collective bargaining that the compelled speech transpired.

Exclusive collective bargaining in itself is compelled speech, and the majority affirmed at least that portion of the previous case. Janus under the law, still has no ability to bargain on their own regardless of paying full dues, partial dues, or no dues. That hasn't changed.

Governor said, 'We ain't have no money'.
Union replied, 'You can get the money'.
SCOTUS says, 'That is political speech! That is unconstitutionally compelled speech!!!!'

We umm... of course it is political... the boss is the State Government you twits.

The facts show the Union response was more than,” You can get the money,” and the specifics of what the Union said was important in ruling in favor of Janus.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Truly the odd finding in this court case is that the man can not be compelled to pay the union a fee for them to bargain his contract... but is still compelled to have them bargain his contract.

Exclusive collective bargaining in itself is compelled speech, and the majority affirmed at least that portion of the previous case. Janus under the law, still has no ability to bargain on their own regardless of paying full dues, partial dues, or no dues. That hasn't changed.

Governor said, 'We ain't have no money'.
Union replied, 'You can get the money'.
SCOTUS says, 'That is political speech! That is unconstitutionally compelled speech!!!!'

We umm... of course it is political... the boss is the State Government you twits.

The facts show the Union response was more than,” You can get the money,” and the specifics of what the Union said was important in ruling in favor of Janus.

I find it interesting the lengths that the conservative majority are willing to go make an argument based on intent and what people say. We saw this in the Bakery Case and again in this case.

But for some odd reason:

Plaintiffs argue that this President’s words strike at fundamental standards of respect and tolerance, in violation of our constitutional tradition. But the issue before us is not whether to denounce the statements. It is instead the significance of those statements in reviewing a Presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility. In doing so, we must consider not only the statements of a particular President, but also the authority of the Presidency itself.

... it was explicitly ruled irrelevant in the Travel Ban case.

Intent seems to be wielded by the conservative majority on an 'as needed' basis in order to shoehorn their decisions.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

When the subject is minimum wage, the phrase "get a different job" is considered proof that the speaker wants to oppress the workers. But when it is a union, that is somehow entirely different.

Yes, it is.

 

[laughing dog]

In addition to affecting how public money is spent,union speech in collective bargaining addresses many other important matters. As the examples offered by respondents’ own amici show, unions express views on awide range of subjects—education, child welfare, healthcare, and minority rights, to name a few. See, e.g., Brief for American Federation of Teachers as Amicus Curiae 15–27; Brief for Child Protective Service Workers et al. as Amici Curiae 5–13; Brief for Human Rights Campaign et al. as Amici Curiae 10–17; Brief for National Women’s Law Center et al. as Amici Curiae 14–30. What unions have to say on these matters in the context of collective bargaining is of great public importance.

That statement, as a general description of what public unions say during collective bargaining, is untrue from my 20+ years experience as a negotiator for a public employee union.
Our union focuses on bargaining the terms and conditions of our contract and nothing else.

 

[James Madison]

Truly the odd finding in this court case is that the man can not be compelled to pay the union a fee for them to bargain his contract... but is still compelled to have them bargain his contract.
I find it interesting the lengths that the conservative majority are willing to go make an argument based on intent and what people say. We saw this in the Bakery Case and again in this case.

But for some odd reason:

Plaintiffs argue that this President’s words strike at fundamental standards of respect and tolerance, in violation of our constitutional tradition. But the issue before us is not whether to denounce the statements. It is instead the significance of those statements in reviewing a Presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility. In doing so, we must consider not only the statements of a particular President, but also the authority of the Presidency itself.

... it was explicitly ruled irrelevant in the Travel Ban case.

Intent seems to be wielded by the conservative majority on an 'as needed' basis in order to shoehorn their decisions.

“Intent” was not invoked or relied by the majority in Janus. Neither was “intent” used by the majority in Master Piece Cake Shop. You’re critiquing a Strawman.

And Janus is not analogous to Trump v Hawaii.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Truly the odd finding in this court case is that the man can not be compelled to pay the union a fee for them to bargain his contract... but is still compelled to have them bargain his contract.
I find it interesting the lengths that the conservative majority are willing to go make an argument based on intent and what people say. We saw this in the Bakery Case and again in this case.

But for some odd reason:

Plaintiffs argue that this President’s words strike at fundamental standards of respect and tolerance, in violation of our constitutional tradition. But the issue before us is not whether to denounce the statements. It is instead the significance of those statements in reviewing a Presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility. In doing so, we must consider not only the statements of a particular President, but also the authority of the Presidency itself.

... it was explicitly ruled irrelevant in the Travel Ban case.

Intent seems to be wielded by the conservative majority on an 'as needed' basis in order to shoehorn their decisions.

“Intent” was not invoked or relied by the majority in Janus. Neither was “intent” used by the majority in Master Piece Cake Shop. You’re critiquing a Strawman.

Intent wasn’t used by the majority... you know what, you are right. They used their own presumed intent of the board in the cake case.

 

[ZiprHead]

Found on another website:

I am a Union member shareholder and have been for a very long time.

I've seen a lot, I know a lot, and there's a lot I have a problem with.

Problem #1. Unions Corporations often donate money to political candidates. This money comes from Union dues corporate assets. That means Union members shareholders are donating money to candidates they may hate. That's not fair.

Problem #2. Unions Corporations often have expensive trips for their delegates, shop stewards, etc. executives. They go to Florida, Colorado Europe, the Carribean, etc. They spend a ******** of money, that comes from Union dues corporate assets. This is just not right.

Anyone else have problems with Unions corporations? Speak up!! Speak out!!