|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 28 2018 00:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 00:00 Plansix wrote:
Nothing like a good old fashion anti-labor judiciary to keep the progressive left fueled up. We just need some more teachers strikes in red states to highlight their poor governance to keep things moving. It's not really an anti-labor decision so much as a pro-freedom decision. The idea that a state can force someone to support political speech that they oppose is fairly repugnant. All this decision does is level the playing field, knocking out what is effectively an illiberal subsidy for public sector unions. Now the public sector unions have to compete for dollars like everyone else. That's how it should be.
It can be both pro-freedom of association and anti-labor. That is how politics works. There are winners and losers. For conservatives like yourself to get what you want out of politics, people who support unionization in the public sector have to lose a key tool to assure their viability as collective advocacy. The concept of compelling political speech may be repugnant to you, but the worker isn’t compelled to speak. Just to pay into the union for the job they accepted. Now I get that conservatives see the act of providing money as a form of speech, but lets not pretend that is an agreed upon. You got your way for the time being. And in 30 years, we could reverse that and upend this ruling.
But now public employees have the option of not paying union dues and the Unions must turn to other means to assure payment and funding. And how the employees who don’t want to be part of the union on treated is also going to be interesting. People tend to forget that a lot of these policies were put in place to stop the conflicts between unions and anti-union groups.
|
United States44391 Posts
On June 28 2018 00:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 00:38 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2018 00:33 xDaunt wrote:On June 28 2018 00:00 Plansix wrote:
Nothing like a good old fashion anti-labor judiciary to keep the progressive left fueled up. We just need some more teachers strikes in red states to highlight their poor governance to keep things moving. It's not really an anti-labor decision so much as a pro-freedom decision. The idea that a state can force someone to support political speech that they oppose is fairly repugnant. You are aware that taxpayers are forced to support the political speech of politicians they voted against, right? Because you ought to be but based on this post it feels like you’re not. Sure, but clearly there's a compelling state interest in paying politicians, so allowances have to be made on that count. Don't get me wrong. I hate the idea of having to pay Maxine Waters' salary, but that's not something that I can avoid.
But you’re presumably familiar with the legal concept of undue enrichment. Public sector employees materially benefit from unions, regardless of their membership of them. Even if you agree with the decision you must be able to see the basis for deducting union fees from their paychecks.
|
On June 28 2018 01:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 00:45 xDaunt wrote:On June 28 2018 00:38 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2018 00:33 xDaunt wrote:On June 28 2018 00:00 Plansix wrote:
Nothing like a good old fashion anti-labor judiciary to keep the progressive left fueled up. We just need some more teachers strikes in red states to highlight their poor governance to keep things moving. It's not really an anti-labor decision so much as a pro-freedom decision. The idea that a state can force someone to support political speech that they oppose is fairly repugnant. You are aware that taxpayers are forced to support the political speech of politicians they voted against, right? Because you ought to be but based on this post it feels like you’re not. Sure, but clearly there's a compelling state interest in paying politicians, so allowances have to be made on that count. Don't get me wrong. I hate the idea of having to pay Maxine Waters' salary, but that's not something that I can avoid. But you’re presumably familiar with the legal concept of undue enrichment. Public sector employees materially benefit from unions, regardless of their membership of them. Even if you agree with the decision you must be able to see the basis for deducting union fees from their paychecks.
I understand the basis for deducting union fees from paychecks, and that basis -- as the Court today decided -- is not compelling enough to override First Amendment considerations.
|
On June 28 2018 00:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 00:41 Doodsmack wrote:On June 28 2018 00:15 xDaunt wrote:On June 27 2018 23:54 Introvert wrote:On June 27 2018 23:31 Danglars wrote:2. The State’s extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public sector employees violates the First Amendment. Abood erred in concluding otherwise, and stare decisis cannot support it. Abood is therefore overruled. Janus decisionExcellent decision! No more compulsory union due collection from objecting public sector employees. The First Amendment is violated when money is taken from nonconsenting employees for a public-sector union; employees must choose to support the union before anything is taken from them. Accordingly, neither an agency fee nor any other form of payment to a public-sector union may be deducted from an employee, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay. So it appears the burdensome opt-out and re-up every year provisions present in some states (or might've served as a basis in this decision nationally) are also gone. I think this concludes the major decisions I was watching for this June. Think it's been a pretty conservative year (without looking). Kennedy didn't have a 5-4 with the liberals once, I don't think. Only thing to look for now would be a retirement announcement  This is one more reason why all of those never-Trump conservatives were and are a bunch of charlatans. This decision does not happen if Hillary is president. Yes, opposing Donald Trump means you’re a charlatan. This is truly Donald Trump era logic. Do you consider yourself a conservative? If not, then my comment doesn't apply to you. And I've already written at length as to why never-Trump conservatives are charlatans, so if you want to see the reasoning, go find those posts in the old thread.
If you’re a conservative who doesn’t get behind Donald Trump, you must be a charlatan. It’s understandable given that Donald Trump has taken over the party, but that doesn’t make it sound.
|
Well, now we have the less than fun alternative of unions pushing contracts for union members only. Never really considered what that would look like. Seems less than efficient and prone to conflict.
|
On June 28 2018 01:19 Plansix wrote:
Well, now we have the less than fun alternative of unions pushing contracts for union members only. Never really considered what that would look like. Seems less than efficient and prone to conflict.
seems like the only logical way though? why should non paying non members get any of the benefits of union membership?
|
On June 28 2018 01:21 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 01:19 Plansix wrote:
Well, now we have the less than fun alternative of unions pushing contracts for union members only. Never really considered what that would look like. Seems less than efficient and prone to conflict. seems like the only logical way though? why should non paying non members get any of the benefits of union membership?
Or harass the employees that refuse to be part of the union until they leave the job. That is how this stuff played out before, only in much more aggressive and violent ways. The people who brought this case did not really think of the real world impacts of the ruling. And maybe the justices as well.
Edit: From an NPR article the likely impact:
Government workers have been a relative stronghold in an otherwise shrinking labor movement. More than a third of the public sector workforce is unionized, compared with less than 7 percent in the private sector.
A survey by the AFSCME — the union Janus would have to pay into — found that if agency fees were no longer mandatory, 15 percent of employees would stop paying them, while 35 percent would continue to pay. The balance of workers were "on the fence."
It should also be noted that the court did not rule some aspect of law that was previously undecided. They reversed a 4 decades old precedent. For the last 10 years the Supreme Court is in the habit of undoing laws and rulings from the 1960 and 1970s. Rulings and laws that were put in place during massive political strife in the US. It is hard not to see these rulings as a regression and invitation for conflict in the future.
|
On June 28 2018 01:24 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 01:21 gobbledydook wrote:On June 28 2018 01:19 Plansix wrote:
Well, now we have the less than fun alternative of unions pushing contracts for union members only. Never really considered what that would look like. Seems less than efficient and prone to conflict. seems like the only logical way though? why should non paying non members get any of the benefits of union membership? Or harass the employees that refuse to be part of the union until they leave the job. That is how this stuff played out before, only in much more aggressive and violent ways. The people who brought this case did not really think of the real world impacts of the ruling. And maybe the justices as well.
the obvious and straightforward solution is to have union contracts and non union contracts at the same time so that non members can't freeload?
if union operatives harass non union members in an attempt to force them to join or quit, then that is the problem and should be dealt with directly, for example by calling the cops.
|
On June 28 2018 01:37 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 01:24 Plansix wrote:On June 28 2018 01:21 gobbledydook wrote:On June 28 2018 01:19 Plansix wrote:
Well, now we have the less than fun alternative of unions pushing contracts for union members only. Never really considered what that would look like. Seems less than efficient and prone to conflict. seems like the only logical way though? why should non paying non members get any of the benefits of union membership? Or harass the employees that refuse to be part of the union until they leave the job. That is how this stuff played out before, only in much more aggressive and violent ways. The people who brought this case did not really think of the real world impacts of the ruling. And maybe the justices as well. the obvious and straightforward solution is to have union contracts and non union contracts at the same time so that non members can't freeload? if union operatives harass non union members in an attempt to force them to join or quit, then that is the problem and should be dealt with directly, for example by calling the cops.
I am not saying harassment it is a solution to solve the problem, I am saying that pressure on employees that are not part of the union will be a result. What form that pressure takes is unknown, but police are also part of a public sector union. I doubt it will be intimidate, however. If anything, the baby boomer generation of public workers is allergic to conflict so they might just roll over, retire and whine when their benefits take a hit.
The separate contracts might be a solution, but I can't see that doesn't also result in conflict. I am purely speculating, I am not an expert on labor or unionization. It just seems like the decision trades own potential problem for another.
|
I don't think separate contracts would work. Seems like there would be too many practical issues with it.
|
On June 28 2018 01:17 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 00:43 xDaunt wrote:On June 28 2018 00:41 Doodsmack wrote:On June 28 2018 00:15 xDaunt wrote:On June 27 2018 23:54 Introvert wrote:On June 27 2018 23:31 Danglars wrote:2. The State’s extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public sector employees violates the First Amendment. Abood erred in concluding otherwise, and stare decisis cannot support it. Abood is therefore overruled. Janus decisionExcellent decision! No more compulsory union due collection from objecting public sector employees. The First Amendment is violated when money is taken from nonconsenting employees for a public-sector union; employees must choose to support the union before anything is taken from them. Accordingly, neither an agency fee nor any other form of payment to a public-sector union may be deducted from an employee, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay. So it appears the burdensome opt-out and re-up every year provisions present in some states (or might've served as a basis in this decision nationally) are also gone. I think this concludes the major decisions I was watching for this June. Think it's been a pretty conservative year (without looking). Kennedy didn't have a 5-4 with the liberals once, I don't think. Only thing to look for now would be a retirement announcement This is one more reason why all of those never-Trump conservatives were and are a bunch of charlatans. This decision does not happen if Hillary is president. Yes, opposing Donald Trump means you’re a charlatan. This is truly Donald Trump era logic. Do you consider yourself a conservative? If not, then my comment doesn't apply to you. And I've already written at length as to why never-Trump conservatives are charlatans, so if you want to see the reasoning, go find those posts in the old thread. If you’re a conservative who doesn’t get behind Donald Trump, you must be a charlatan. It’s understandable given that Donald Trump has taken over the party, but that doesn’t make it sound.
Have you considered the extent of the hypocrisy behind the never Trumper position? Do you not think that blatant hypocrisy is grounds for being called a charlatan?
|
On June 28 2018 02:07 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 01:17 Doodsmack wrote:On June 28 2018 00:43 xDaunt wrote:On June 28 2018 00:41 Doodsmack wrote:On June 28 2018 00:15 xDaunt wrote:On June 27 2018 23:54 Introvert wrote:On June 27 2018 23:31 Danglars wrote:2. The State’s extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public sector employees violates the First Amendment. Abood erred in concluding otherwise, and stare decisis cannot support it. Abood is therefore overruled. Janus decisionExcellent decision! No more compulsory union due collection from objecting public sector employees. The First Amendment is violated when money is taken from nonconsenting employees for a public-sector union; employees must choose to support the union before anything is taken from them. Accordingly, neither an agency fee nor any other form of payment to a public-sector union may be deducted from an employee, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay. So it appears the burdensome opt-out and re-up every year provisions present in some states (or might've served as a basis in this decision nationally) are also gone. I think this concludes the major decisions I was watching for this June. Think it's been a pretty conservative year (without looking). Kennedy didn't have a 5-4 with the liberals once, I don't think. Only thing to look for now would be a retirement announcement This is one more reason why all of those never-Trump conservatives were and are a bunch of charlatans. This decision does not happen if Hillary is president. Yes, opposing Donald Trump means you’re a charlatan. This is truly Donald Trump era logic. Do you consider yourself a conservative? If not, then my comment doesn't apply to you. And I've already written at length as to why never-Trump conservatives are charlatans, so if you want to see the reasoning, go find those posts in the old thread. If you’re a conservative who doesn’t get behind Donald Trump, you must be a charlatan. It’s understandable given that Donald Trump has taken over the party, but that doesn’t make it sound. Have you considered the extent of the hypocrisy behind the never Trumper position? Do you not think that blatant hypocrisy is grounds for being called a charlatan?
Because they are a conservative has different priorities than some other conservatives? Or that they believe the long term damage he will do is not worth the short term gains?
|
On June 28 2018 00:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2018 23:54 Introvert wrote:On June 27 2018 23:31 Danglars wrote:2. The State’s extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public sector employees violates the First Amendment. Abood erred in concluding otherwise, and stare decisis cannot support it. Abood is therefore overruled. Janus decisionExcellent decision! No more compulsory union due collection from objecting public sector employees. The First Amendment is violated when money is taken from nonconsenting employees for a public-sector union; employees must choose to support the union before anything is taken from them. Accordingly, neither an agency fee nor any other form of payment to a public-sector union may be deducted from an employee, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay. So it appears the burdensome opt-out and re-up every year provisions present in some states (or might've served as a basis in this decision nationally) are also gone. I think this concludes the major decisions I was watching for this June. Think it's been a pretty conservative year (without looking). Kennedy didn't have a 5-4 with the liberals once, I don't think. Only thing to look for now would be a retirement announcement This is one more reason why all of those never-Trump conservatives were and are a bunch of charlatans. This decision does not happen if Hillary is president.
As one of those people who wasn't a fan of Trump (to out it lightly), I will say that on this issue he has exceeded expectations. He's actually been excellent. I do have to acknowledge that.
Also I suspect your usage of Never Trumper may differ enough from some others to cause confusion.
|
On June 28 2018 02:13 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 00:15 xDaunt wrote:On June 27 2018 23:54 Introvert wrote:On June 27 2018 23:31 Danglars wrote:2. The State’s extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public sector employees violates the First Amendment. Abood erred in concluding otherwise, and stare decisis cannot support it. Abood is therefore overruled. Janus decisionExcellent decision! No more compulsory union due collection from objecting public sector employees. The First Amendment is violated when money is taken from nonconsenting employees for a public-sector union; employees must choose to support the union before anything is taken from them. Accordingly, neither an agency fee nor any other form of payment to a public-sector union may be deducted from an employee, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay. So it appears the burdensome opt-out and re-up every year provisions present in some states (or might've served as a basis in this decision nationally) are also gone. I think this concludes the major decisions I was watching for this June. Think it's been a pretty conservative year (without looking). Kennedy didn't have a 5-4 with the liberals once, I don't think. Only thing to look for now would be a retirement announcement This is one more reason why all of those never-Trump conservatives were and are a bunch of charlatans. This decision does not happen if Hillary is president. As one of those people who wasn't a fan of Trump (to out it lightly), I will say that on this issue he has exceeded expectations. He's actually been excellent. I do have to acknowledge that. Also I suspect your usage of Never Trumper may differ enough from some others to cause confusion.
The Never Trumpers are the republicans/conservatives who refused to support (and even openly advocated against) Trump's candidacy for president once he secured the nomination.
|
On June 28 2018 02:16 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 02:13 Introvert wrote:On June 28 2018 00:15 xDaunt wrote:On June 27 2018 23:54 Introvert wrote:On June 27 2018 23:31 Danglars wrote:2. The State’s extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public sector employees violates the First Amendment. Abood erred in concluding otherwise, and stare decisis cannot support it. Abood is therefore overruled. Janus decisionExcellent decision! No more compulsory union due collection from objecting public sector employees. The First Amendment is violated when money is taken from nonconsenting employees for a public-sector union; employees must choose to support the union before anything is taken from them. Accordingly, neither an agency fee nor any other form of payment to a public-sector union may be deducted from an employee, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay. So it appears the burdensome opt-out and re-up every year provisions present in some states (or might've served as a basis in this decision nationally) are also gone. I think this concludes the major decisions I was watching for this June. Think it's been a pretty conservative year (without looking). Kennedy didn't have a 5-4 with the liberals once, I don't think. Only thing to look for now would be a retirement announcement This is one more reason why all of those never-Trump conservatives were and are a bunch of charlatans. This decision does not happen if Hillary is president. As one of those people who wasn't a fan of Trump (to out it lightly), I will say that on this issue he has exceeded expectations. He's actually been excellent. I do have to acknowledge that. Also I suspect your usage of Never Trumper may differ enough from some others to cause confusion. The Never Trumpers are the republicans/conservatives who refused to support (and even openly advocated against) Trump's candidacy for president once he secured the nomination.
There are many viewpoints from which not wanting an egotistical con-man with no experience or understanding of government in the White House makes sense. As much as I have no respect whatsoever for the US conservative platform, I think it's almost comical that you can't see how Agent Orange might be a wee bit far for some who would normally want a Republican in office. Nonsense like his expensive border wall and diving head-first into trade wars were obvious risks, someone aligning with your party/wallet values means nothing if they are going to burn the whole system on which you rely to the ground.
|
On June 28 2018 02:13 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 00:15 xDaunt wrote:On June 27 2018 23:54 Introvert wrote:On June 27 2018 23:31 Danglars wrote:2. The State’s extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public sector employees violates the First Amendment. Abood erred in concluding otherwise, and stare decisis cannot support it. Abood is therefore overruled. Janus decisionExcellent decision! No more compulsory union due collection from objecting public sector employees. The First Amendment is violated when money is taken from nonconsenting employees for a public-sector union; employees must choose to support the union before anything is taken from them. Accordingly, neither an agency fee nor any other form of payment to a public-sector union may be deducted from an employee, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay. So it appears the burdensome opt-out and re-up every year provisions present in some states (or might've served as a basis in this decision nationally) are also gone. I think this concludes the major decisions I was watching for this June. Think it's been a pretty conservative year (without looking). Kennedy didn't have a 5-4 with the liberals once, I don't think. Only thing to look for now would be a retirement announcement This is one more reason why all of those never-Trump conservatives were and are a bunch of charlatans. This decision does not happen if Hillary is president. As one of those people who wasn't a fan of Trump (to out it lightly), I will say that on this issue he has exceeded expectations. He's actually been excellent. I do have to acknowledge that. Also I suspect your usage of Never Trumper may differ enough from some others to cause confusion.
Huh, I'm curious what you thought Trump would do judicial nominee-wise that he exceeded your expectations. Did you expect the cronyism to extend to the SCOTUS level (it certainly has when it comes to some of his other choices for judicial nominees)?
|
On June 28 2018 02:16 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 02:13 Introvert wrote:On June 28 2018 00:15 xDaunt wrote:On June 27 2018 23:54 Introvert wrote:On June 27 2018 23:31 Danglars wrote:2. The State’s extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public sector employees violates the First Amendment. Abood erred in concluding otherwise, and stare decisis cannot support it. Abood is therefore overruled. Janus decisionExcellent decision! No more compulsory union due collection from objecting public sector employees. The First Amendment is violated when money is taken from nonconsenting employees for a public-sector union; employees must choose to support the union before anything is taken from them. Accordingly, neither an agency fee nor any other form of payment to a public-sector union may be deducted from an employee, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay. So it appears the burdensome opt-out and re-up every year provisions present in some states (or might've served as a basis in this decision nationally) are also gone. I think this concludes the major decisions I was watching for this June. Think it's been a pretty conservative year (without looking). Kennedy didn't have a 5-4 with the liberals once, I don't think. Only thing to look for now would be a retirement announcement This is one more reason why all of those never-Trump conservatives were and are a bunch of charlatans. This decision does not happen if Hillary is president. As one of those people who wasn't a fan of Trump (to out it lightly), I will say that on this issue he has exceeded expectations. He's actually been excellent. I do have to acknowledge that. Also I suspect your usage of Never Trumper may differ enough from some others to cause confusion. The Never Trumpers are the republicans/conservatives who refused to support (and even openly advocated against) Trump's candidacy for president once he secured the nomination.
Okay. Care to share what makes them hypocrites? I'm not a Never Trump conservative, obviously, but I know several
|
|
|
On June 27 2018 11:29 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2018 11:19 Doodsmack wrote:On June 27 2018 09:24 Danglars wrote:
"But he said some mean things about Muslims once" is a great whataboutism, to be sure. "That means he has no legal power to do this thing because he was such a jerk about it" is a poor refuge. That is a pretty funny way to gloss over his promise that you voted for. The counterargument to the opinion is about first amendment rights, which is something the president's promise (that you voted for) is very relevant to. isn't it interesting how somehow a foreigner has a first amendment right to come into our country but bakers and clinic operators can be lose theirs and be compelled to speak.
I wasn't aware a baker had to talk the entire time that he is baking a cake. Did the court specifically tell him to carry on a soliloquy about how much he loves gay marriage as he was baking a cake? Or is perhaps making a product that you sell to the general public not a form of speech?
|
On June 28 2018 01:45 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 01:37 gobbledydook wrote:On June 28 2018 01:24 Plansix wrote:On June 28 2018 01:21 gobbledydook wrote:On June 28 2018 01:19 Plansix wrote:
Well, now we have the less than fun alternative of unions pushing contracts for union members only. Never really considered what that would look like. Seems less than efficient and prone to conflict. seems like the only logical way though? why should non paying non members get any of the benefits of union membership? Or harass the employees that refuse to be part of the union until they leave the job. That is how this stuff played out before, only in much more aggressive and violent ways. The people who brought this case did not really think of the real world impacts of the ruling. And maybe the justices as well. the obvious and straightforward solution is to have union contracts and non union contracts at the same time so that non members can't freeload? if union operatives harass non union members in an attempt to force them to join or quit, then that is the problem and should be dealt with directly, for example by calling the cops. I am not saying harassment it is a solution to solve the problem, I am saying that pressure on employees that are not part of the union will be a result. What form that pressure takes is unknown, but police are also part of a public sector union. I doubt it will be intimidate, however. If anything, the baby boomer generation of public workers is allergic to conflict so they might just roll over, retire and whine when their benefits take a hit. The separate contracts might be a solution, but I can't see that doesn't also result in conflict. I am purely speculating, I am not an expert on labor or unionization. It just seems like the decision trades own potential problem for another.
Why would an employer take on/keep on a union worker if they could pay non-union workers less? I guess that the union workers would be far more likely to be let go when lay-offs were made (or not have contracts renewed if on fixed length contracts). And what about promotions? Non-union workers could get prioritised for promotions too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
