Public Employee unions dodge a big one: SCOTUS deadlocks on Friedrichs.

[laughing dog]

The SCOTUS deadlocked 4-4 on the Friedrichs decision (whether public sector union agency fees are unconstitutional), so the lower court's decision that the plaintiff's case was "“so insubstantial as to not require further argument.” is upheld.
IMO, the 9th Circuit Court used commons sense and got the decision correct. See this article for a relatively balanced report - http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/friedrichs-supreme-court-decision/470103/.

Public employee unions dodged disaster on this one.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

The SCOTUS deadlocked 4-4 on the Friedrichs decision (whether public sector union agency fees are unconstitutional), so the lower court's decision that the plaintiff's case was "“so insubstantial as to not require further argument.” is upheld.
IMO, the 9th Circuit Court used commons sense and got the decision correct. See this article for a relatively balanced report - http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/friedrichs-supreme-court-decision/470103/.

Public employee unions dodged disaster on this one.

Yeah, I wonder how Scalia would have voted.

aa

 

[ZiprHead]

The SCOTUS deadlocked 4-4 on the Friedrichs decision (whether public sector union agency fees are unconstitutional), so the lower court's decision that the plaintiff's case was "“so insubstantial as to not require further argument.” is upheld.
IMO, the 9th Circuit Court used commons sense and got the decision correct. See this article for a relatively balanced report - http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/friedrichs-supreme-court-decision/470103/.

Public employee unions dodged disaster on this one.

Yeah, I wonder how Scalia would have voted.

aa

You really wonder???

BTW, good for the union.

 

[dismal]

Yeah, where would public sector unions be without the power to compel people to involuntarily pay for them to speak on their behalf?.

How could they possibly fight evil greedy profit hungry state governments who also were pro-union enough to pass laws allowing compulsory public union membership if the USSC had struck this down?

 

[RavenSky]

The SCOTUS deadlocked 4-4 on the Friedrichs decision (whether public sector union agency fees are unconstitutional), so the lower court's decision that the plaintiff's case was "“so insubstantial as to not require further argument.” is upheld.
IMO, the 9th Circuit Court used commons sense and got the decision correct. See this article for a relatively balanced report - http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/friedrichs-supreme-court-decision/470103/.

Public employee unions dodged disaster on this one.

Yeah, I wonder how Scalia would have voted.

aa

really?

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Yeah, where would public sector unions be without the power to compel people to involuntarily pay for them to speak on their behalf?.

How could they possibly fight evil greedy profit hungry state governments who also were pro-union enough to pass laws allowing compulsory public union membership if the USSC had struck this down?

Are you saying that you when the organized unions fight for higher teacher pay, that the increase should only apply to full union members - or that your capitalist sensibilities aren't opposed to 'free-riders'.

aa

 

[dismal]

Yeah, where would public sector unions be without the power to compel people to involuntarily pay for them to speak on their behalf?.

How could they possibly fight evil greedy profit hungry state governments who also were pro-union enough to pass laws allowing compulsory public union membership if the USSC had struck this down?

Are you saying that you when the organized unions fight for higher teacher pay, that the increase should only apply to full union members - or that your capitalist sensibilities aren't opposed to 'free-riders'.

aa

Sure. People who don't want to join the union can negotiate on their own.

 

[bilby]

Are you saying that you when the organized unions fight for higher teacher pay, that the increase should only apply to full union members - or that your capitalist sensibilities aren't opposed to 'free-riders'.

aa

Sure. People who don't want to join the union can negotiate on their own.

And people who don't want to hire a defence attorney can represent themselves.

But only an idiot would do so, unless he had directly relevant legal training, because it's a specialist skill. Indeed, even lawyers rarely represent themselves, because they are aware of the effect an emotional stake in the outcome can have on their ability to select the least bad outcome, rather than pursuing a risky and likely unattainable better result.

Some things are best left to the professionals. You can bet your boots that the HR department for any organisation with more than a handful of staff will employ a professional on their side of the negotiations. And that this means that an ordinary worker will likely get shafted if he tries to represent himself.

Even a gifted and knowledgeable amateur negotiator is at a disadvantage when facing a professional who spends almost every day trying to get the best deal for his clients.

 

[Axulus]

Sure. People who don't want to join the union can negotiate on their own.

And people who don't want to hire a defence attorney can represent themselves.

But only an idiot would do so, unless he had directly relevant legal training, because it's a specialist skill. Indeed, even lawyers rarely represent themselves, because they are aware of the effect an emotional stake in the outcome can have on their ability to select the least bad outcome, rather than pursuing a risky and likely unattainable better result.

Some things are best left to the professionals. You can bet your boots that the HR department for any organisation with more than a handful of staff will employ a professional on their side of the negotiations. And that this means that an ordinary worker will likely get shafted if he tries to represent himself.

Even a gifted and knowledgeable amateur negotiator is at a disadvantage when facing a professional who spends almost every day trying to get the best deal for his clients.

But you aren't just paying for repesentation in contract negotiations, you are also paying for a political lobbying machine to get pro-union Democrats elected into office. What is a public sector employee that is non-Democrat to do?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And people who don't want to hire a defence attorney can represent themselves.

But only an idiot would do so, unless he had directly relevant legal training, because it's a specialist skill. Indeed, even lawyers rarely represent themselves, because they are aware of the effect an emotional stake in the outcome can have on their ability to select the least bad outcome, rather than pursuing a risky and likely unattainable better result.

Some things are best left to the professionals. You can bet your boots that the HR department for any organisation with more than a handful of staff will employ a professional on their side of the negotiations. And that this means that an ordinary worker will likely get shafted if he tries to represent himself.

Even a gifted and knowledgeable amateur negotiator is at a disadvantage when facing a professional who spends almost every day trying to get the best deal for his clients.

But you aren't just paying for repesentation in contract negotiations, you are also paying for a political lobbying machine to get pro-union Democrats elected into office. What is a public sector employee that is non-Democrat to do?

In the teacher world, they are free to work for a Charter school. Maybe even one that will pay them and if they quit to leave for another job, not be saddled with a couple thousand dollar fine.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

And people who don't want to hire a defence attorney can represent themselves.

But only an idiot would do so, unless he had directly relevant legal training, because it's a specialist skill. Indeed, even lawyers rarely represent themselves, because they are aware of the effect an emotional stake in the outcome can have on their ability to select the least bad outcome, rather than pursuing a risky and likely unattainable better result.

Some things are best left to the professionals. You can bet your boots that the HR department for any organisation with more than a handful of staff will employ a professional on their side of the negotiations. And that this means that an ordinary worker will likely get shafted if he tries to represent himself.

Even a gifted and knowledgeable amateur negotiator is at a disadvantage when facing a professional who spends almost every day trying to get the best deal for his clients.

But you aren't just paying for repesentation in contract negotiations, you are also paying for a political lobbying machine to get pro-union Democrats elected into office. What is a public sector employee that is non-Democrat to do?

They gave money to Scott Walker.

 

[laughing dog]

And people who don't want to hire a defence attorney can represent themselves.

But only an idiot would do so, unless he had directly relevant legal training, because it's a specialist skill. Indeed, even lawyers rarely represent themselves, because they are aware of the effect an emotional stake in the outcome can have on their ability to select the least bad outcome, rather than pursuing a risky and likely unattainable better result.

Some things are best left to the professionals. You can bet your boots that the HR department for any organisation with more than a handful of staff will employ a professional on their side of the negotiations. And that this means that an ordinary worker will likely get shafted if he tries to represent himself.

Even a gifted and knowledgeable amateur negotiator is at a disadvantage when facing a professional who spends almost every day trying to get the best deal for his clients.

But you aren't just paying for repesentation in contract negotiations, you are also paying for a political lobbying machine to get pro-union Democrats elected into office.

That is untrue. Agency fees exclude the political lobbying expenses. In my state, that is called "fair share" and the dues are 85% of the normal dues. Moreover, anyone is free to challenge the percentage and the union has to demonstrate what portion of the expenses are spent on lobbying.

 

[Axulus]

But you aren't just paying for repesentation in contract negotiations, you are also paying for a political lobbying machine to get pro-union Democrats elected into office. What is a public sector employee that is non-Democrat to do?

In the teacher world, they are free to work for a Charter school. Maybe even one that will pay them and if they quit to leave for another job, not be saddled with a couple thousand dollar fine.

That's ridiculous to have 90% of your job opportunities require you fund Democrats for elected office for a job that isn't political. Very convenient for those Democrats who support that system.

 

[laughing dog]

In the teacher world, they are free to work for a Charter school. Maybe even one that will pay them and if they quit to leave for another job, not be saddled with a couple thousand dollar fine.

That's ridiculous to have 90% of your job opportunities require you fund Democrats for elected office for a job that isn't political. Very convenient for those Democrats who support that system.

In California,

Those who don’t join are still required to pay a smaller “agency fee,” also known as a fair-share fee, to the union to help fund its collective-bargaining functions. Unlike member dues, funds from the agency fees can’t be used for the union’s political purposes.

(from the OP cited article). So those teachers were not funding any politician with their forced agency fees.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

And people who don't want to hire a defence attorney can represent themselves.

But only an idiot would do so, unless he had directly relevant legal training, because it's a specialist skill. Indeed, even lawyers rarely represent themselves, because they are aware of the effect an emotional stake in the outcome can have on their ability to select the least bad outcome, rather than pursuing a risky and likely unattainable better result.

Some things are best left to the professionals. You can bet your boots that the HR department for any organisation with more than a handful of staff will employ a professional on their side of the negotiations. And that this means that an ordinary worker will likely get shafted if he tries to represent himself.

Even a gifted and knowledgeable amateur negotiator is at a disadvantage when facing a professional who spends almost every day trying to get the best deal for his clients.

But you aren't just paying for repesentation in contract negotiations, you are also paying for a political lobbying machine to get pro-union Democrats elected into office. What is a public sector employee that is non-Democrat to do?

Funny thing.

When unions are strong, you get pro union republicans too.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

In the teacher world, they are free to work for a Charter school. Maybe even one that will pay them and if they quit to leave for another job, not be saddled with a couple thousand dollar fine.

That's ridiculous to have 90% of your job opportunities require you fund Democrats for elected office for a job that isn't political. Very convenient for those Democrats who support that system.

Considering the Republican party is systematically trying to dismember all workplace rights (see meat packing industry) it is no wonder why unions tend to withhold support from those candidates.

 

[lpetrich]

But you aren't just paying for repesentation in contract negotiations, you are also paying for a political lobbying machine to get pro-union Democrats elected into office. What is a public sector employee that is non-Democrat to do?

Try to get the union to be pro-Republican.

Seriously, Axulus, would you complain if it was Republicans getting the support instead of Democrats?

In fact, there are some labor unions that have tended to support Republicans, like the California prison guards' union. Axulus, aren't you overjoyed that there are some pro-Republican labor unions?

 

[dismal]

But you aren't just paying for repesentation in contract negotiations, you are also paying for a political lobbying machine to get pro-union Democrats elected into office. What is a public sector employee that is non-Democrat to do?

In the teacher world, they are free to work for a Charter school. Maybe even one that will pay them and if they quit to leave for another job, not be saddled with a couple thousand dollar fine.

In general are you OK with compelling people to join dues paying organizations to be hired for a job?

Like if you wanted to come work for me at Dismal, Inc I could compel you to join and pay $500 annual dues to the Americans for Dismal Society?

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

I think some people are confusing public sector unions with the Citizens United ruling.

aa

 

[ZiprHead]

In general are you OK with compelling people to join dues paying organizations to be hired for a job?

Like if you wanted to come work for me at Dismal, Inc I could compel you to join and pay $500 annual dues to the Americans for Dismal Society?