1. Welcome to Georgia Tech Swarm! JOIN US and be a part of the SWARM! GO JACKETS! THWg!

The US Supreme Court Served Up A Major Defeat To Labor Unions

Discussion in 'The Swarm Lounge' started by MikeJackets1967, Jun 27, 2018.

  1. bwelbo

    bwelbo Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    16,384
    I can see why you object to that, but it doesn't mean its unconstitutional. Public employee unions out of all of them are especially corrupt (regardless of party) and give money directly to the people they negotiate for their employment terms...all while negotiating over someone's money that isn't even at the table. Out of all the unions that would have an argument in court, public employee unions would be example #1. If you look up any random state's finances and read their reports, the #1 most pressing concern is unfunded liabilities around employee benefits. You can work as a county employee (for example) for 20 years, then retire on full health and pension benefits for the next 40 years. That's obnoxious.
     
  2. bwelbo

    bwelbo Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    16,384
    Yep, I noticed that one. I went all the way back to WWII without finding any and gave up at that point. So that process for the nomination started in July - 16 months before the election.
     
  3. bwelbo

    bwelbo Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    16,384
    Sorry for my delayed response. When I'm not doing so well in a discussion, I start acting like I'm busy with something else and hope everybody forgets and moves on. :D
     
    OldJacketFan likes this.
  4. TechnicalPossum

    TechnicalPossum Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    784
    A couple things:
    1) In general, the only reason they get the benefits without the fees is that the unions pushed to be the sole recognized negotiator for all employees after unionization. They could have taken the position to only represent dues paying union members and chose not to. Likely to have a compelling argument to get partial dues from non-members.

    2) If giving the American worker the right to choose whether or not to associate with a union with both their money and person is an "assault on the American worker", we need to assault them on a regular basis.

    3) As to your question about PAC's, to my knowledge, this decision is limited to public sector unions. If the government is forcing employees to donate to PAC's, then yes, it should.

    4) I don't think you understand Citizen's United if that is your take on it. That is the standard left wing talking point about it.
     
    Whiskey_Clear likes this.
  5. OldJacketFan

    OldJacketFan Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    8,781

    1) the public entity agreed to that for simplification purposes in collective bargaining, i.e. not having to negotiate individually

    2) we see the Robert court doing away with protections of the worker on a consistent basis these days, you may be okay with that but it bothers me

    3) do you honestly think the Roberts court is going to stop with public sector unions given their history?

    4) please explain how I am misinterpreting Citizens United
     
  6. bwelbo

    bwelbo Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    16,384
    I'm reading and watching lots of people with huge angst that Kennedy is retiring and will be replaced by a conservative who could overturn some of the 5-4 decisions and more contentious social cases. It seems so unAmerican that your basic rights and freedoms as a human would be threatened by 1 single person in a black robe. It hope its a reminder to everyone that public and social policies (especially contentious ones) should be decided through the legislature by vote of the people and not by 1 single person's opinion in a court.
     
    AE 87, MWBATL and OldJacketFan like this.
  7. MWBATL

    MWBATL Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    5,209
    Yeah, that black robe stuff is very cultish and tells you all you need to know....
     
    OldJacketFan likes this.
  8. TechnicalPossum

    TechnicalPossum Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    784
    1) Just because they agreed doesn't make it constitutional. Would you want to be represented by a group that not only you were not a member of, but you actively opted out of?

    2) Which workers protections did the Robert's court do away with? It is a stretch to say that making non union members pay dues is a worker protection. If the union wants the dues, they need to exclusively offer a service that the payer wants. If anything, a case to the contrary could be made as some of the unions on the left coast advocated for higher minimum wage then tried to get exemptions for union members. Source: http://www.latimes.com/local/cityhall/la-me-union-minimum-wage-20160410-story.html

    3) Yes.

    4)This is gonna be the long one. So base summary:


    Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark U.S. constitutional law, campaign finance, and corporate law case dealing with regulation of political campaign spending by organizations. The United States Supreme Court held (5–4) on January 21, 2010 that the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for communications by nonprofit corporations, for-profit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.[2][3]

    In the case, the conservative non-profit organization Citizens United sought to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts shortly before the 2008 Democratic primary election in which Clinton was running for U.S. President. Federal law, however, prohibited any corporation (or labor union) from making an "electioneering communication" (defined as a broadcast ad reaching over 50,000 people in the electorate) within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election, or making any expenditure advocating the election or defeat of a candidate at any time. The court found that these provisions of the law conflicted with the U.S. Constitution.

    However, the court upheld requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements. The case did not affect the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties.

    Direct holding:

    The provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act restricting unions, corporations, and profitable organizations from independent political spending and prohibiting the broadcasting of political media funded by them within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election violate the First Amendment's protections of freedom of speech. United States District Court for the District of Columbia reversed.

    My big disagreement with your characterization of Citizens United is the whole "Corporations are People" tagline. That has nothing to do with it. As written, it is more that first amendment protections do not end at the individual and cover groups of individuals. For the sake of argument, let's say that Citizens United went the other way. Would it not have a chilling effect on speech and communication? What would keep the rules from no advertisement within 36 days of an election from those groups? If 60 days is acceptable, why not 360? It also have the effects of saying that the only advertisement that can be bought is from single people, thus suppressing the speech of groups where no single individual has the funding to run ads on their own.

    Side note, the ACLU filed a brief in favor of the decision. https://www.aclu.org/cases/citizens...citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission
     
    Whiskey_Clear likes this.
  9. MWBATL

    MWBATL Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    5,209
    OK, first disclosure...I have not read this entire thread and so maybe this is a dumb question, BUT (since being dumb has never stopped me before)....

    I am confused by objections to Citizens United. The New York Times is a corporation. Media Matters can speak out on elections issues. Labor Unions are free to donate an influence elections. To somehow exclude corporations....actually, just some corporations...while allowing entire segments of other corporate entities the same rights....smacks of discrimination for expressly political purposes. Liberals do not object to the NY Times influence.....because it supports their causes. They do not object to Soros' influence. They object to Koch Bros influence....because it opposes their causes.

    It just seems blatantly and fundamentally a political argument.
     
  10. OldJacketFan

    OldJacketFan Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    8,781
    I object to ANY dark money going into campaign advertising. CU allows for unlimited, non regulated money to be spent for political purposes. The Koch Bros to use your example funnel untold sums of money through various PACs without that money ever be identified as coming from them. I've no doubt Soros does the same. That's what I'm objecting to! The average citizen does not have a clue who is financing the candidates and the candidates themselves are owned lock, stock and barrel.
     
    MWBATL likes this.
  11. bwelbo

    bwelbo Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    16,384
    Hey I'm in that same club!

    This was a political argument - Democrats were mainly worried that all the Republican fat cats (because all the rich people are Republicans) could just buy elections. That's poppycock, because Obama for example won a majority of wealthy voters. And we've seen elections where Democrats out fund-raised Republicans by many times. For example, Hillary Clinton spent $800 million while Donald Trump only spent $400 million. That's a huge discrepancy. So the two things we've learned since the decision are (a) No party owns a monopoly on money, and (b) Having a sizeable fundraising advantage doesn't necessarily mean you can just buy elections.
     
  12. OldJacketFan

    OldJacketFan Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    8,781

    1) constitutionally has nothing to do with the entity agreeing through collective bargaining to negotiate all salaries, benefits and working conditions through a union for all workers. The non union members benefit greatly from this.

    2) the Roberts court continues to narrow access to the court for employees through arbitration agreement, narrowing class certification and the like. All of those decision are easily searchable if you're interested

    3) I hope you're right but I think this decision is an on going salvo of attacks against union, the right has despised union as long as I can remember

    4) I'm going to use the same statement I used to a follow up on CU, we will disagree on what is says about Corporations vs individuals.
    I object to ANY dark money going into campaign advertising. CU allows for unlimited, non regulated money to be spent for political purposes. The Koch Bros to use your example funnel untold sums of money through various PACs without that money ever be identified as coming from them. I've no doubt Soros does the same. That's what I'm objecting to! The average citizen does not have a clue who is financing the candidates and the candidates themselves are owned lock, stock and barrel.
     
    MikeJackets1967 likes this.
  13. TechnicalPossum

    TechnicalPossum Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    784
    1) But it does when the government is entering into that agreement with a third party for you without your consent!

    2) That is a reasonable argument. The class certification one was a bit different though, as it meant employees were bound by the arbitration paperwork they agreed to. If you don't want arbitration and you want to be able to file class action suits, don't sign the paper agreeing only to arbitration.

    3) The right is typically anti union, just as unions are anti right.

    4) Koch Brothers were not my example. And I support disclosure on donations. One of the items that was not change by CU:

    "However, the court upheld requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements. The case did not affect the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties."

    As the dark money, CU didn't change anything about who could give to 501(c)(4) {social welfare}, 501(c)(5) {unions}, and 501(c)(6) {trade association} non-profits for campaigning, how much they could give, and the fact that they don't have to declare the donations. The only thing it changed is that when they could buy advertisements couldn't be limited. This likely did increase the amount of money funneled through them on all sides for all parties. If Congress altered the tax code requiring finding sources for all of these types of non-profits that can buy political advertising to be disclosed, I would fully support that. That disclosure is not a constitutional issue for the SCOTUS.
     
    Whiskey_Clear likes this.
  14. OldJacketFan

    OldJacketFan Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    8,781

    We're not as far apart as it might have appeared initially ;)

    I'm not sure where you're going with the government entering into an agreement without your consent, please elaborate.

    It bothers me when you're forced into an arb agreement, the employers is in a much stronger position than the prospective employee.

    The right is anti employee as well

    I know Koch wasn't your example. I used them and Soros to illustrate my position that I don't care who is backing the dark money side I am not a fan of it! I would love to see NO corporate involvement in political campaigns but, sadly, that ain't going to happen
     
  15. Whiskey_Clear

    Whiskey_Clear Banned

    Messages:
    13,638
    1) is a 1A issue, I’m not sure anyone can convince you it’s true but many of us see it clearly. SCOTUS ruled on just that. You may disagree with the decision but if they ruled on it, it was obviously a constitutional issue.
     
  16. OldJacketFan

    OldJacketFan Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    8,781
    Yep I do disagree with it, I'm allowed to do that you know ;) At least for now
     
  17. Whiskey_Clear

    Whiskey_Clear Banned

    Messages:
    13,638
    Absolutely. And I disagree with other SCOTUS rulings. But it was a constitutional issue.
     
  18. MikeJackets1967

    MikeJackets1967 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    15,323
  19. TechnicalPossum

    TechnicalPossum Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    784
    Most people really aren't that far apart. It's really a matter of articulating thoughts and remembering 1) that just because something may be "good" or "beneficial" does NOT mean the government can or should compel it, 2) the will of the majority should never crush the rights of the minority, and 3) we can want the same outcome and disagree on the best method to achieve that outcome.

    The agreement without your consent is the agreement that you are mandated (i.e. no consent) to give a third party (the union) part of your paycheck even though you aren't a member and had to actively opt out of membership and you did not consent to the union being your representation in negotiation. I'll frame it differently. Let's say congress has now decided the NRA is the citizens representative when it comes negotiating gun laws and issues. NRA members pay dues to the organization already. Should the government be able to force the rest of the non-members to pay partial dues because the NRA is representing you and advocating for your rights even if you don't support the organization?

    Arb agreements (and non-compete) clauses bother me in general. But if you don't like it, don't sign. There are always more jobs.

    I think it is a vast simplification to say the right is anti employee. I usually frame it that the left looks at it from a labor supply side and the right looks at it from a demand side. In short, the left takes the view of "because I work, I should be able to do / have X, Y, and Z, regardless of my skill set" where the right takes the view "because of your skill set, your time is worth T+B benefits. If that doesn't afford you X, Y, and Z, you choose what you cut."
     
    AE 87 and Whiskey_Clear like this.
  20. AE 87

    AE 87 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    13,573
    I really appreciate your opening 3bullets.
     
    TechnicalPossum likes this.

Share This Page