|
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 02:42 JimmiC wrote:
It will be interesting to see who and how many opt out. I suspect union members will treat them much the way they do when someone crosses the line to work during a strike. Which would be closest to middle/high school bullying.
Even if it is a high amount of people expect both parties to almost hate each other before long, which won't make for a pleasant work environment.
Yeah it's weird how employers and employees get along so well when their interests are so misaligned right?
|
On June 28 2018 02:47 Melliflue wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 01:45 Plansix wrote: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.
It is 100% illegal to punish an employee in any way for being part of a union. That includes favoring non-union employees. Their right to collectively bargain is protected by law and all of the things you referenced would be handled through that collective bargaining.
And before you say that it the law runs in conflict to the free market of labor, that is true. However, the reason it exist is labor rights were obtained through a whole lot of violence and the government backed laws like that to curb that violence.
Edit: I should note that most “right to work” states have built in systems that allow employers to simply fire people for any reason. So as long as the company isn’t dumb enough to cite being part of a union as the reason for being fired, they can effectively eliminate any attempts to unionize. That is why "right to work" is an amazing name for a law that grants power to employers.
On June 28 2018 02:54 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 02:42 JimmiC wrote:
It will be interesting to see who and how many opt out. I suspect union members will treat them much the way they do when someone crosses the line to work during a strike. Which would be closest to middle/high school bullying.
Even if it is a high amount of people expect both parties to almost hate each other before long, which won't make for a pleasant work environment. Yeah it's weird how employers and employees get along so well when their interests are so misaligned right?
It get along because of laws that prohibit and curb hostile escalations between labor and business owners.
|
|
|
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.
I admit I don't get your stance. I think most of them have proven to be hypocrites in the long run by accepting Trump, but is it so unthinkable that some Republicans were so disgusted by Trump as a person and political figure that they couldn't stomach the idea of him being President?
I'm pretty sure John McCain's loathing of Trump is 100% genuine. In fact I think he'd be overjoyed if Trump got impeached.
|
welp, kennedy announced his retirement
|
The only logical response is to wait until the next election just like......
Who am I kidding? They are going to SLAM that nominee through the senate. This is going to be the fastest confirmation in history.
|
Sigh... things are going to get ugly now. Disappointed in Kennedy doing it now, before the election, but he has his reasons. FedSoc dancing in the streets. Also, get ready for all the Republican hypocrisy. No waiting for a vote this time!
I'm not worried about issues like gay marriage, since Roberts will go to bat for his own courts precedence, but a range of other issues like abortion and guns and a number of social rights issues are in serious danger now.
I've said it before and I'll say it again... I hope all those angry Bernie and Stein voters are happy.
|
7815 Posts
On June 28 2018 03:06 ticklishmusic wrote:
welp, kennedy announced his retirement
Ehhhhhhhh, Nov 2018 can't come any faster. I think this is really, really big.
|
On June 28 2018 03:06 ticklishmusic wrote:
welp, kennedy announced his retirement
Well, that’s big. And he goes out swinging on a bunch of 5-4 decisions on individual liberty. So crazy.
|
unfortunate timing on the retirement, but folks get old so it can't be helped.
|
The democrats and the Sanders camp better learn to play nice in the very near future. 2020 is looking like that last chance for any left leaning shift in the courts for the next 30 years. We could be seeing 7-2 decisions for a long time.
|
Considering how old Ginsburg and Breyer are, assuming they even last until 2020, replacing them should be the number one platform for any dem. If the impact of Gorsuch already wasn't enough proof, losing again and letting Trump place 2-5 justices (Thomas could retire) would be more devastating to liberal plans than literally anything else I can think of.
|
On June 28 2018 03:19 Plansix wrote:
The democrats and the Sanders camp better learn to play nice in the very near future. 2020 is looking like that last chance for any left leaning shift in the courts for the next 30 years. We could be seeing 7-2 decisions for a long time.
aye; and we know the republicans won't care if there's judicial overreach in their favor. which could lead to the court losing more legitimacy by doing so. could easily lead to a whole lot more trouble down the line.
|
Between his last two 5-4 rulings, and retiring in Trump time, Kennedy is going to go down as having royally borked this. The irony of Korematsu being denounced as he does as much as possible to allow for institutionalized racism in the same week is palpable.
|
Schumer needs to make this as ugly as possible. Kick up as much dust as you can and call out all the hypocrisy when you see it. If this doesn't fire up the base for Nov, nothing will.
|
The question is if McConnell tries to cancel the August recess to try and slam through Trumps nominee.
|
On June 28 2018 02:54 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 02:47 Melliflue wrote:On June 28 2018 01:45 Plansix wrote: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. It is 100% illegal to punish an employee in any way for being part of a union. That includes favoring non-union employees. Their right to collectively bargain is protected by law and all of the things you referenced would be handled through that collective bargaining. And before you say that it the law runs in conflict to the free market of labor, that is true. However, the reason it exist is labor rights were obtained through a whole lot of violence and the government backed laws like that to curb that violence. Edit: I should note that most “right to work” states have built in systems that allow employers to simply fire people for any reason. So as long as the company isn’t dumb enough to cite being part of a union as the reason for being fired, they can effectively eliminate any attempts to unionize. That is why "right to work" is an amazing name for a law that grants power to employers.
It would illegal but I fear it would also be difficult to prove that something was done due to union membership. As you say, "right to work" makes it very easy to discriminate in some states. I know this problem exists with many other non-discrimination employment laws though, so I guess the same basic principles would apply.
|
Questions answered, they knew this was coming and were prespared. Expect a quick confirmation this fall and a hard conservative tilt to the court for the foreseeable future. Like until you retire. The one thing is for sure, the conservatives who valued control of the Supreme Court have gotten everything they have wanted.
Edit: I forgot Kennedy wrote Citizens United. Man, his quote about the money not impacting American’s faith in Democracy sure looks like some real shit right now.
|
It feels weird how a lot of US politics seems to be based on being lucky enough to be in power when a few judges quit. (Or just not giving a fuck and delaying the decision until you are in power again)
Anyways, i guess this means that the US is even more fucked for the foreseeable future? Get a Trump nominee in instantly (No way is he going to have to wait for a full year like Obama), and have a 5:4 or more republican judges on everything? So more decisions for money in politics, against minority rights, against womens rights, for christian liberty (It isn't really religious liberty anymore, is it?), for corruption, against humans rights and for all the other disgusting shit the republican party stands for.
|
Presumably Leonard Leo, the guy who donated to Trump’s inauguration (ceremony celebrating Trump) through a shell company along with many others seeking to curry favor, provided Trump with that list as he did with Gorsuch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
