The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
Nobody Expects the [SCOTUS] 5-4 Decision! (Read the OP)
The issue is Was being brought up was that it's very hard to construct a legal argument that supports CU but not the rights of unions to practice politics. That you're suggesting it as "horse trading" implies that you don't have a legal argument.
Like I can see both or none. If you feel that corporations should not be able to influence politics then unions would be caught in that net. But if you feel corporations should have unfettered access to politics then unions are not any different. I can even see no CU and unions. Because prior to CU corporations still had some access to politics.
But I can't see CU but no unions. It doesn't make sense
The issue is Was being brought up was that it's very hard to construct a legal argument that supports CU but not the rights of unions to practice politics. That you're suggesting it as "horse trading" implies that you don't have a legal argument.
Like I can see both or none. If you feel that corporations should not be able to influence politics then unions would be caught in that net. But if you feel corporations should have unfettered access to politics then unions are not any different. I can even see no CU and unions. Because prior to CU corporations still had some access to politics.
But I can't see CU but no unions. It doesn't make sense
right that's what I was saying. I'd happily support reversing CU if it meant that unions would also be out of the game.
As for philosophical justifications, they really only hold water in closed shops. If you must be in the union, then they shouldn't be able to do politics with your dues.
The issue is Was being brought up was that it's very hard to construct a legal argument that supports CU but not the rights of unions to practice politics. That you're suggesting it as "horse trading" implies that you don't have a legal argument.
Like I can see both or none. If you feel that corporations should not be able to influence politics then unions would be caught in that net. But if you feel corporations should have unfettered access to politics then unions are not any different. I can even see no CU and unions. Because prior to CU corporations still had some access to politics.
But I can't see CU but no unions. It doesn't make sense
right that's what I was saying. I'd happily support reversing CU if it meant that unions would also be out of the game.
As for philosophical justifications, they really only hold water in closed shops. If you must be in the union, then they shouldn't be able to do politics with your dues.
But how does that not also apply to CU? If it's too unfair and onerous to have to leave a company because you don't like that company's union's politics, surely it is equally unfair and onerous to have to leave a company because you don't like that company's politics.
It's possible that, as you say, getting a paycheck and contributing dues are two different levels of personal responsibility; but especially when forced, it's more personal to be a representative a company you disagree with than to give money to a union you disagree with, just like there's a difference between working for a government agency whose policies you dislike and legally having to pay taxes to a government whose policies you dislike.
if unions can't participate in political activity how are they supposed to affect better working conditions through legislation
not that they do anyway given how weak they've become, warren and sanders are like the only senators who give even the barest fuck about labor
I mean, I don't mind. But OK, let's ban them from supporting political candidates or parties. Specific issues only.
How would this even work?
Specific issues don't get elected, candidates that are members of political parties do.
It'd look exactly life if we banned Corporations from supporting candidates or parties which is a pretty common request over on the left. Basically non-human actors don't get to directly get involved in elections. This gets into the whole thing of when an organization of humans ceases to be "a human" for purposes of politics but there is the basis for a sound argument that such institutions do not have a place influencing democratic elections.
As Spool mentioned, we're not gonna get there from here. Certainly not with our current Supreme Court, but it isn't like a crazy bonkers wish.
if unions can't participate in political activity how are they supposed to affect better working conditions through legislation
not that they do anyway given how weak they've become, warren and sanders are like the only senators who give even the barest fuck about labor
I mean, I don't mind. But OK, let's ban them from supporting political candidates or parties. Specific issues only.
How would this even work?
Specific issues don't get elected, candidates that are members of political parties do.
It'd look exactly life if we banned Corporations from supporting candidates or parties which is a pretty common request over on the left. Basically non-human actors don't get to directly get involved in elections. This gets into the whole thing of when an organization of humans ceases to be "a human" for purposes of politics but there is the basis for a sound argument that such institutions do not have a place influencing democratic elections.
As Spool mentioned, we're not gonna get there from here. Certainly not with our current Supreme Court, but it isn't like a crazy bonkers wish.
They are not, and never have been. It's a gross misunderstanding of what "corporate personhood" means that was used to justify CU.
Corporations are a legal construct, and their existence is defined by legislation. They have no intrinsic rights, and are not people. The phrase "corporate personhood" basically means that some of the laws about them allow them act as human analogues for specific purposes - primarily contracts and civil suits. If memory serves, the entire purpose of it was to make it possible for corporations to be held accountable in the first place; without it you have to actually be able to sue some director, who can both be hard to track down (deliberately) and always blame someone else (who blames someone else, who...) to make pinning down responsibility enough to get a judgement difficult. Hence just doing away with that and letting you sue the company as a whole (also appropriate anyways because any responsibility is likely to be diffused among many individuals anyways, which gets into the veil of corporate personhood).
But basically, it's nothing but legislation saying an organization can sue and be sued (and enter contracts) as a collective whole rather than only as individuals. The idea that it confers any rights not explicitly in the legislation is nonsense (certainly speech is not a requirement).
This is not to say that the individuals on the board of directors or whatnot cannot exercise their right to free speech; however they must do so with their assets, not those of the corporation (on which they have fiduciary duties to the shareholders; indeed I think there may be a case for political donations from corporate assets being a breach of fiduciary duties in at least some cases).
Going back to the union case, the argument is basically that since money is fungible and use of assets is zero-sum, any dues paid intrinsically support the political activities of the union. There is a case for that of course. However, that case is exactly the same as corporate assets being spent on politics and the investments of shareholders (or perhaps more analogous would be employee deductions for health plans, mandatory spending on uniforms, etc.). This is money intended for company growth or services but because it's fungible it also supports the company's political spending. You can't argue that it's okay for corporations to take advantage of it and not unions.
Now, this case is specifically about public unions. It tries to use the fig leaf that since public union negotiations affect public spending they're somehow different and you can kneecap public unions for it. Frankly, it's bullshit. Any political lobbying will affect public expenditures, so the political spending can't be differentiated on that regard. The other side of the argument is that since political donations can affect who they have to negotiate with and improperly affect the negotiations process is problematic as well. It runs into the same goose/gander problem since corporations do it all the fucking time while getting government contracts. There's something to it, but you can't just single out public unions for it. And honestly I think the corporate case is worse as a matter of who profits from it (and probably costs the government more as well, though I don't know how you can actually quantify that meaningfully).
The issue is Was being brought up was that it's very hard to construct a legal argument that supports CU but not the rights of unions to practice politics. That you're suggesting it as "horse trading" implies that you don't have a legal argument.
Like I can see both or none. If you feel that corporations should not be able to influence politics then unions would be caught in that net. But if you feel corporations should have unfettered access to politics then unions are not any different. I can even see no CU and unions. Because prior to CU corporations still had some access to politics.
But I can't see CU but no unions. It doesn't make sense
right that's what I was saying. I'd happily support reversing CU if it meant that unions would also be out of the game.
As for philosophical justifications, they really only hold water in closed shops. If you must be in the union, then they shouldn't be able to do politics with your dues.
mandatory dues are the worst. Is that what the case is about?
As I understand it they're annoyed that the dues go to support political candidates that they don't agree with. Which is roughly akin to saying that you're annoyed that buying McDonalds goes to support rainforest deforestation and childhood obesity. You're paying for a service (higher wages, better insurance, and actual labor rights) and so you shouldn't have a say in where the service spends the money you pay it. If you don't like the causes the union supports then you shouldn't get the benefits of the union. Frederichs et al want to have their cake and eat it too.
Paying union dues is fundamentally different from getting a wage for your labor.
I heartily support banning unions from all political activity of any sort, as I've said many times. I'd even trade a CU reversal for a ban on union participation in politics.
On what grounds?
plain old horse-trading? I know it's not something that we could actually get to happen.
So your opinion that unions should be banned from political activities has no legal or philosophical basis?
Alright. I mean, it's startlingly honest I guess...
man, don't be such a silly goose. I thought you meant what grounds for a trade.
Why you gotta be like that dude.
Right, that's my point. It's a trade to you. It's not based on a legal or philosophical argument. You aren't, so far as you've stated in this thread, against unions participating in politics because of anything but the fact that they support things you don't like.
Because there can be no trade if there aren't sides. And you've already defined those sides and who's on them.
And saying it's a trade implies a CU reversal is "giving something up" to you, which means you want CU AND a ban on union participation in politics which is a position that has seemingly no legal or philosophical basis here.
"The problem is that everything that is collectively bargained with the government is within the political sphere," said Justice Antonin Scalia, seen as the lone conservative who might side with the unions. "What is bargained for is in all cases a matter of public interest." When lawyers for California and its teachers union cited more mundane collective bargaining issues such as mileage rates and public safety, Chief Justice John Roberts objected. "It's all money," Roberts said. "That's always a public policy issue." Their comments and others from justices who previously have criticized the practice of compelling union fees made it clear that the court is likely to strike down its nearly 40-year-old precedent allowing states to impose such requirements on a union's non-members. That would make it harder for unions representing teachers, police and firefighters, and other government workers to maintain their power by affecting their pocketbooks.
"The problem is that everything that is collectively bargained with the government is within the political sphere," said Justice Antonin Scalia, seen as the lone conservative who might side with the unions. "What is bargained for is in all cases a matter of public interest." When lawyers for California and its teachers union cited more mundane collective bargaining issues such as mileage rates and public safety, Chief Justice John Roberts objected. "It's all money," Roberts said. "That's always a public policy issue." Their comments and others from justices who previously have criticized the practice of compelling union fees made it clear that the court is likely to strike down its nearly 40-year-old precedent allowing states to impose such requirements on a union's non-members. That would make it harder for unions representing teachers, police and firefighters, and other government workers to maintain their power by affecting their pocketbooks.
That is so stupid. Everything's all money, and since money is speech, nothing can be restricted! QED.
It's the same stupid argument you always see. Public unions are somehow different because they are public. Even though they are just negotiating with their employers. And yet somehow this doesn't apply to, say, corporations, who's policies also have an effect on public policy. Cause let's be frank, what doesn't by this definition?
So a broad interpretation would be that public unions have no power to negotiate on behalf of their constituents?
No, they just have to take free riders, so would have no money to do anything and are thus crippled.
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
It's the same stupid argument you always see. Public unions are somehow different because they are public. Even though they are just negotiating with their employers. And yet somehow this doesn't apply to, say, corporations, who's policies also have an effect on public policy. Cause let's be frank, what doesn't by this definition?
they're campaigning for the people they have to negotiate with, who will pay them with public funds so that they can spend the funds to help the negotiators get re-elected so they can negotiate more with them for more money that they will take a portion of to campaign for re-election...
It's the same stupid argument you always see. Public unions are somehow different because they are public. Even though they are just negotiating with their employers. And yet somehow this doesn't apply to, say, corporations, who's policies also have an effect on public policy. Cause let's be frank, what doesn't by this definition?
they're campaigning for the people they have to negotiate with, who will pay them with public funds so that they can spend the funds to help the negotiators get re-elected so they can negotiate more with them for more money that they will take a portion of to campaign for re-election...
You can't see the conflict of interest there?
No more than corporations that have government contracts.
It's the same stupid argument you always see. Public unions are somehow different because they are public. Even though they are just negotiating with their employers. And yet somehow this doesn't apply to, say, corporations, who's policies also have an effect on public policy. Cause let's be frank, what doesn't by this definition?
they're campaigning for the people they have to negotiate with, who will pay them with public funds so that they can spend the funds to help the negotiators get re-elected so they can negotiate more with them for more money that they will take a portion of to campaign for re-election...
You can't see the conflict of interest there?
You might as well say that government employees shouldn't be allowed to vote, because they'll vote for the candidates that will pay them more money, conflict of interest!
Hell. You might as well say NOBODY should vote, because we'll all vote for the candidate that will lower our taxes, and that's a conflict of interest.
It's the same stupid argument you always see. Public unions are somehow different because they are public. Even though they are just negotiating with their employers. And yet somehow this doesn't apply to, say, corporations, who's policies also have an effect on public policy. Cause let's be frank, what doesn't by this definition?
they're campaigning for the people they have to negotiate with, who will pay them with public funds so that they can spend the funds to help the negotiators get re-elected so they can negotiate more with them for more money that they will take a portion of to campaign for re-election...
You can't see the conflict of interest there?
So you're saying we shouldn't pay anyone who works for the government.
It's the same stupid argument you always see. Public unions are somehow different because they are public. Even though they are just negotiating with their employers. And yet somehow this doesn't apply to, say, corporations, who's policies also have an effect on public policy. Cause let's be frank, what doesn't by this definition?
they're campaigning for the people they have to negotiate with, who will pay them with public funds so that they can spend the funds to help the negotiators get re-elected so they can negotiate more with them for more money that they will take a portion of to campaign for re-election...
You can't see the conflict of interest there?
No more than corporations that have government contracts.
The government technically has a choice between contractors, and the decision makers in the bid process are absolutely forbidden from receiving compensation from the corporations. So there is a sort of firewall between the donations and the selection process.
A teacher's union is a sole source situation; it's ethically stickier. If there were competing unions who contributed to politicians but were selected by an equivalent process, then it would be comparable.
E: Which isn't to say it's unethical. A corporation bidding on contracts and a union are functionally very different; enough so that I don't see this as a double standard.
It's the same stupid argument you always see. Public unions are somehow different because they are public. Even though they are just negotiating with their employers. And yet somehow this doesn't apply to, say, corporations, who's policies also have an effect on public policy. Cause let's be frank, what doesn't by this definition?
they're campaigning for the people they have to negotiate with, who will pay them with public funds so that they can spend the funds to help the negotiators get re-elected so they can negotiate more with them for more money that they will take a portion of to campaign for re-election...
You can't see the conflict of interest there?
Whaaa? No. The Union gets paid by its members to negotiate. Its returns are given to union members in salary in benefit, not to the union. If the Union does do campaigning it does so with funds given to the union by members voluntarily (as the enforced payment cannot be used for politics) and so the money has no connection to the contract.
I mean there is more issue in corporations where corporations are allowed to negotiate deals with the government and also lobby the government.
It's the same stupid argument you always see. Public unions are somehow different because they are public. Even though they are just negotiating with their employers. And yet somehow this doesn't apply to, say, corporations, who's policies also have an effect on public policy. Cause let's be frank, what doesn't by this definition?
they're campaigning for the people they have to negotiate with, who will pay them with public funds so that they can spend the funds to help the negotiators get re-elected so they can negotiate more with them for more money that they will take a portion of to campaign for re-election...
You can't see the conflict of interest there?
You might as well say that government employees shouldn't be allowed to vote, because they'll vote for the candidates that will pay them more money, conflict of interest!
Hell. You might as well say NOBODY should vote, because we'll all vote for the candidate that will lower our taxes, and that's a conflict of interest.
No, because a wage is not the same as dues extracted by a 3rd party. Also individuals are different from unions! As you all agree whenever we talk about corporations.
Also we clearly won't all vote for the candidate who lowers taxes, as evidenced by the last 2 Presidential elections.
It's the same stupid argument you always see. Public unions are somehow different because they are public. Even though they are just negotiating with their employers. And yet somehow this doesn't apply to, say, corporations, who's policies also have an effect on public policy. Cause let's be frank, what doesn't by this definition?
they're campaigning for the people they have to negotiate with, who will pay them with public funds so that they can spend the funds to help the negotiators get re-elected so they can negotiate more with them for more money that they will take a portion of to campaign for re-election...
You can't see the conflict of interest there?
No more than corporations that have government contracts.
The government technically has a choice between contractors, and the decision makers in the bid process are absolutely forbidden from receiving compensation from the corporations. So there is a sort of firewall between the donations and the selection process.
A teacher's union is a sole source situation; it's ethically stickier. If there were competing unions who contributed to politicians but were selected by an equivalent process, then it would be comparable.
Let us not pretend that that firewall hasn't been extinguished a long long time ago.
The government also doesn't select unions. Unions are formed to represent the workers the government does select. It's not a ... sourcing situation, period, any more than the Federal government being required to "sole-source" state representatives. I mean, maybe if the federal government were allowed to choose between which Dakota to allow into the union every 2 years....
It's the same stupid argument you always see. Public unions are somehow different because they are public. Even though they are just negotiating with their employers. And yet somehow this doesn't apply to, say, corporations, who's policies also have an effect on public policy. Cause let's be frank, what doesn't by this definition?
they're campaigning for the people they have to negotiate with, who will pay them with public funds so that they can spend the funds to help the negotiators get re-elected so they can negotiate more with them for more money that they will take a portion of to campaign for re-election...
You can't see the conflict of interest there?
You might as well say that government employees shouldn't be allowed to vote, because they'll vote for the candidates that will pay them more money, conflict of interest!
Hell. You might as well say NOBODY should vote, because we'll all vote for the candidate that will lower our taxes, and that's a conflict of interest.
No, because a wage is not the same as dues extracted by a 3rd party. Also individuals are different from unions! As you all agree whenever we talk about corporations.
Also we clearly won't all vote for the candidate who lowers taxes, as evidenced by the last 2 Presidential elections.
I don't understand what you're trying to say for the first one. A wage is indeed not the same as dues extracted by a third party. But dues extracted by the third party are not allowed to be used for politics. So the only funds which have any connection to both the political side and the negotiation side came from wages of individuals making free decisions to donate. The exact same/further from conflict of interest as with corporations.
I agree with spool32 in theory, but I contest the idea that giving the direly downtrodden American worker "undue" say in pro-labor is a bad thing.
Are we afraid that real wages will actually rise for once after 30 years of stagnation (which was not stagnation of production, so all of that wealth was stolen from labor)?
Are we afraid that the US will finally grant more than zero mandatory days of maternal/paternal leave?
Are we afraid that industry wide collusion to prevent people from changing jobs for better wages, more time with family, a better work environment, etc will be more thoroughly illegal?
Etc.
Unions actually being able to meaningfully affect US policy again, instead of it being entirely dictated by corporate fat cats who are going to put us into a place that fundamentally endangers American values, American power, and American security, is not a reason to be concerned about allowing unions do advocate for the interests of their members in the political sphere, particularly when one candidate is willing to listen, and the other candidate wants to turn them all into near indentured servants.
It's the same stupid argument you always see. Public unions are somehow different because they are public. Even though they are just negotiating with their employers. And yet somehow this doesn't apply to, say, corporations, who's policies also have an effect on public policy. Cause let's be frank, what doesn't by this definition?
they're campaigning for the people they have to negotiate with, who will pay them with public funds so that they can spend the funds to help the negotiators get re-elected so they can negotiate more with them for more money that they will take a portion of to campaign for re-election...
You can't see the conflict of interest there?
You might as well say that government employees shouldn't be allowed to vote, because they'll vote for the candidates that will pay them more money, conflict of interest!
Hell. You might as well say NOBODY should vote, because we'll all vote for the candidate that will lower our taxes, and that's a conflict of interest.
No, because a wage is not the same as dues extracted by a 3rd party. Also individuals are different from unions! As you all agree whenever we talk about corporations.
Also we clearly won't all vote for the candidate who lowers taxes, as evidenced by the last 2 Presidential elections.
I don't understand what you're trying to say for the first one. A wage is indeed not the same as dues extracted by a third party. But dues extracted by the third party are not allowed to be used for politics. So the only funds which have any connection to both the political side and the negotiation side came from wages of individuals making free decisions to donate. The exact same/further from conflict of interest as with corporations.
Money is fungible, union dues can't be firewalled. And I don't disagree with the corporate conflict argument, by the by. I'm happy to reverse CU or restrict corps to issues-only campaigning or remove them entirely alongside doing it to unions.
It's the same stupid argument you always see. Public unions are somehow different because they are public. Even though they are just negotiating with their employers. And yet somehow this doesn't apply to, say, corporations, who's policies also have an effect on public policy. Cause let's be frank, what doesn't by this definition?
they're campaigning for the people they have to negotiate with, who will pay them with public funds so that they can spend the funds to help the negotiators get re-elected so they can negotiate more with them for more money that they will take a portion of to campaign for re-election...
You can't see the conflict of interest there?
You might as well say that government employees shouldn't be allowed to vote, because they'll vote for the candidates that will pay them more money, conflict of interest!
Hell. You might as well say NOBODY should vote, because we'll all vote for the candidate that will lower our taxes, and that's a conflict of interest.
No, because a wage is not the same as dues extracted by a 3rd party. Also individuals are different from unions! As you all agree whenever we talk about corporations.
Also we clearly won't all vote for the candidate who lowers taxes, as evidenced by the last 2 Presidential elections.
To draw from my giant post on this a couple days ago, a better analogy than wages would be uniforms. It is to my knowledge legal for a company to require its employees purchase uniforms. The money from said purchase can be spent to lobby the government for whatever the board of directors wants (because money is fungible).
Now, should the corporation be allowed to extract a mandatory payment from employees that can then be spent to further causes they dislike? If so, how does this differ from the case of unions?
Of course, this particular case argues that public sector unions are special because they can spend money to lobby for people who will then give the workers more money. This does not strike me as particularly different from corporations lobbying for politicians who will then award government contracts.
The issue I see here though is simple though. You can't stop unions from lobbying without infringing on free speech rights (of the union, per CU, but by the plaintiff's own arguments it would also infringe the rights of workers who are donating to the union's political fund since they presumably agree with the message). The plaintiffs are instead trying to stop the union from being able to collect dues from all employees. I don't actually think this is possible from a functional level - the union could reach the same goal by collecting no dues from anybody but contracting with the company to just have that money taken out of the paychecks (or rather, not paid out to begin with and adjust compensation accordingly). This would have basically the same effect, because again... money is fungible; there's no difference from a due, a paycheck deduction, or something you're given and don't know you're paying for (as an opportunity cost).
However, I feel the plaintiff's argument is based on a false premise to begin with. Money is fungible... but only within an account. It is entirely possible for a union to maintain sufficiently separated accounts to defeat the fungibility premise. At a minimum, the union could split off a separate organization, incorporate it as a PAC, and just funnel the political donations into it. Functionally identical and the plaintiff's argument collapses. I think it's a fatal flaw in their argument at a fundamental level.
I do fear though that if the court rules adversely it will not respect that difference - from the plaintiff's arguments (as I understand them), a union that does not make political donations itself is still free to collect mandatory dues (which leads to my hypothetical PAC scenario).
Or to put it simply, if money is absolutely fungible as you assert, that would mean that funding Planned Parenthood whatsoever would be a violation of the Hyde Amendment.
It's the same stupid argument you always see. Public unions are somehow different because they are public. Even though they are just negotiating with their employers. And yet somehow this doesn't apply to, say, corporations, who's policies also have an effect on public policy. Cause let's be frank, what doesn't by this definition?
they're campaigning for the people they have to negotiate with, who will pay them with public funds so that they can spend the funds to help the negotiators get re-elected so they can negotiate more with them for more money that they will take a portion of to campaign for re-election...
You can't see the conflict of interest there?
You might as well say that government employees shouldn't be allowed to vote, because they'll vote for the candidates that will pay them more money, conflict of interest!
Hell. You might as well say NOBODY should vote, because we'll all vote for the candidate that will lower our taxes, and that's a conflict of interest.
No, because a wage is not the same as dues extracted by a 3rd party. Also individuals are different from unions! As you all agree whenever we talk about corporations.
Also we clearly won't all vote for the candidate who lowers taxes, as evidenced by the last 2 Presidential elections.
To draw from my giant post on this a couple days ago, a better analogy than wages would be uniforms. It is to my knowledge legal for a company to require its employees purchase uniforms. The money from said purchase can be spent to lobby the government for whatever the board of directors wants (because money is fungible).
Now, should the corporation be allowed to extract a mandatory payment from employees that can then be spent to further causes they dislike? If so, how does this differ from the case of unions?
Of course, this particular case argues that public sector unions are special because they can spend money to lobby for people who will then give the workers more money. This does not strike me as particularly different from corporations lobbying for politicians who will then award government contracts.
The issue I see here though is simple though. You can't stop unions from lobbying without infringing on free speech rights (of the union, per CU, but by the plaintiff's own arguments it would also infringe the rights of workers who are donating to the union's political fund since they presumably agree with the message). The plaintiffs are instead trying to stop the union from being able to collect dues from all employees. I don't actually think this is possible from a functional level - the union could reach the same goal by collecting no dues from anybody but contracting with the company to just have that money taken out of the paychecks (or rather, not paid out to begin with and adjust compensation accordingly). This would have basically the same effect, because again... money is fungible; there's no difference from a due, a paycheck deduction, or something you're given and don't know you're paying for (as an opportunity cost).
However, I feel the plaintiff's argument is based on a false premise to begin with. Money is fungible... but only within an account. It is entirely possible for a union to maintain sufficiently separated accounts to defeat the fungibility premise. At a minimum, the union could split off a separate organization, incorporate it as a PAC, and just funnel the political donations into it. Functionally identical and the plaintiff's argument collapses. I think it's a fatal flaw in their argument at a fundamental level.
I do fear though that if the court rules adversely it will not respect that difference - from the plaintiff's arguments (as I understand them), a union that does not make political donations itself is still free to collect mandatory dues (which leads to my hypothetical PAC scenario).
How do you handle the issue of de facto requirements to participate in GOTV efforts? This is one of the places where even a separate account breaks down in terms of maintaining the firewall.
Interesting though, it gives me angles to think about.
Money is fungible but we tend to not think of it being so for legal purposes. At the least it should be possible to negate the effect by ensuring separate income streams and accounts.
Basically if the base Union due could also not be used for politics regardless of whether or not the payer paid extra then that would be a sufficient firewall
It's the same stupid argument you always see. Public unions are somehow different because they are public. Even though they are just negotiating with their employers. And yet somehow this doesn't apply to, say, corporations, who's policies also have an effect on public policy. Cause let's be frank, what doesn't by this definition?
they're campaigning for the people they have to negotiate with, who will pay them with public funds so that they can spend the funds to help the negotiators get re-elected so they can negotiate more with them for more money that they will take a portion of to campaign for re-election...
You can't see the conflict of interest there?
So you're saying we shouldn't pay anyone who works for the government.
It's the same stupid argument you always see. Public unions are somehow different because they are public. Even though they are just negotiating with their employers. And yet somehow this doesn't apply to, say, corporations, who's policies also have an effect on public policy. Cause let's be frank, what doesn't by this definition?
they're campaigning for the people they have to negotiate with, who will pay them with public funds so that they can spend the funds to help the negotiators get re-elected so they can negotiate more with them for more money that they will take a portion of to campaign for re-election...
You can't see the conflict of interest there?
You might as well say that government employees shouldn't be allowed to vote, because they'll vote for the candidates that will pay them more money, conflict of interest!
Hell. You might as well say NOBODY should vote, because we'll all vote for the candidate that will lower our taxes, and that's a conflict of interest.
Indeed. There is no politicking without conflict of interest by this definition.
Like, taxes alone mean every single entity in the entire United States of America has a conflict of interest of this sort with voting.
It's the same stupid argument you always see. Public unions are somehow different because they are public. Even though they are just negotiating with their employers. And yet somehow this doesn't apply to, say, corporations, who's policies also have an effect on public policy. Cause let's be frank, what doesn't by this definition?
they're campaigning for the people they have to negotiate with, who will pay them with public funds so that they can spend the funds to help the negotiators get re-elected so they can negotiate more with them for more money that they will take a portion of to campaign for re-election...
You can't see the conflict of interest there?
Hi, yes. I am a government employee. I like getting paid a fair salary for the tiny portion of the government that I work in, because I do my work damn well and get paid about 40% less than the private sector. I don't mind getting paid less than average for public security, but I do have a right to say that my work is deserving of some sort of compensation and, at times, that a cost of living increase should probably be accomodated.
As of this moment, people in my work at my workplace deal literally 178% more volume than in year 2000 (our service population has almost tripled), cost of living aloe has increased about 18%, and our pay has actually increased less than 2% since 2000 in flat numbers, and factoring cost of living has actually gone down considerably.
My work is worth something, it doesn't matter who is signing the paycheck (be it uncle sam or some ceo). I should have the ability to be paid and be able to negotiate for both fair salary and workforce conditions. If we had a state union for my job classification, I know we would be making a fair wage (the faculty I work with do have a union and actually get only a slightly lower than national median pay because of it, and always get a fair, and negotiated based upon state receipts, cost of living increase that can both be afforded by the state and make sure we retain decent teachers).
Your concern is assuming everyone negotiating in the government are appointee positions, which is vastly false and shows a lack of understanding of who these unions represent.
It's the same stupid argument you always see. Public unions are somehow different because they are public. Even though they are just negotiating with their employers. And yet somehow this doesn't apply to, say, corporations, who's policies also have an effect on public policy. Cause let's be frank, what doesn't by this definition?
they're campaigning for the people they have to negotiate with, who will pay them with public funds so that they can spend the funds to help the negotiators get re-elected so they can negotiate more with them for more money that they will take a portion of to campaign for re-election...
You can't see the conflict of interest there?
You might as well say that government employees shouldn't be allowed to vote, because they'll vote for the candidates that will pay them more money, conflict of interest!
Hell. You might as well say NOBODY should vote, because we'll all vote for the candidate that will lower our taxes, and that's a conflict of interest.
Indeed. There is no politicking without conflict of interest by this definition.
Like, taxes alone mean every single entity in the entire United States of America has a conflict of interest of this sort with voting.
Bread and circuses, am I right?
You can probably find someone unironically using that to argue that people on welfare shouldn't be able to vote.
There are all kinds of special interest groups soliciting the government for money that they might be able to put back into helping the favored government people get elected. Like corporate interest groups that get a good amount of government funding and tax breaks, which they can then use to continue getting favored people elected. Especially in industries that work heavily with the government. Good thing there aren't massive companies that negotiate contracts with the government.
if unions can't participate in political activity how are they supposed to affect better working conditions through legislation
not that they do anyway given how weak they've become, warren and sanders are like the only senators who give even the barest fuck about labor
I mean, I don't mind. But OK, let's ban them from supporting political candidates or parties. Specific issues only.
How would this even work?
Specific issues don't get elected, candidates that are members of political parties do.
It'd look exactly life if we banned Corporations from supporting candidates or parties which is a pretty common request over on the left. Basically non-human actors don't get to directly get involved in elections. This gets into the whole thing of when an organization of humans ceases to be "a human" for purposes of politics but there is the basis for a sound argument that such institutions do not have a place influencing democratic elections.
As Spool mentioned, we're not gonna get there from here. Certainly not with our current Supreme Court, but it isn't like a crazy bonkers wish.
They are not, and never have been. It's a gross misunderstanding of what "corporate personhood" means that was used to justify CU.
No - "corporate personhood" was not used to justify CU.
It never shows why “the freedom of speech” that was the right of Englishmen did not include the freedom to speak in association with other individuals, including association in the corporate form.
...The individual person’s right to speak includes the right to speak in association with other individual persons. Surely the dissent does not believe that speech by the Republican Party or the Democratic Party can be censored because it is not the speech of “an individual American.” It is the speech of many individual Americans, who have associated in a common cause, giving the leadership of the party the right to speak on their behalf. The association of individuals in a business corporation is no different—or at least it cannot be denied the right to speak on the simplistic ground that it is not “an individual American.”
The majority opinion didn't uphold CU because Corporations have personhood separate from the individual persons and thus should enjoy the same rights, but rather because Corporations are not separate from the individual persons and thus should not be denied the same rights.
Pat Sayjack (I have no idea if I Ann spelling that correctly, it's the guy from wheel of fortune) made a public statement about how teachers shouldn't be allowed to vote for similar reasons. This was back in 2008 I think.
if unions can't participate in political activity how are they supposed to affect better working conditions through legislation
not that they do anyway given how weak they've become, warren and sanders are like the only senators who give even the barest fuck about labor
I mean, I don't mind. But OK, let's ban them from supporting political candidates or parties. Specific issues only.
How would this even work?
Specific issues don't get elected, candidates that are members of political parties do.
It'd look exactly life if we banned Corporations from supporting candidates or parties which is a pretty common request over on the left. Basically non-human actors don't get to directly get involved in elections. This gets into the whole thing of when an organization of humans ceases to be "a human" for purposes of politics but there is the basis for a sound argument that such institutions do not have a place influencing democratic elections.
As Spool mentioned, we're not gonna get there from here. Certainly not with our current Supreme Court, but it isn't like a crazy bonkers wish.
They are not, and never have been. It's a gross misunderstanding of what "corporate personhood" means that was used to justify CU.
No - "corporate personhood" was not used to justify CU.
It never shows why “the freedom of speech” that was the right of Englishmen did not include the freedom to speak in association with other individuals, including association in the corporate form.
...The individual person’s right to speak includes the right to speak in association with other individual persons. Surely the dissent does not believe that speech by the Republican Party or the Democratic Party can be censored because it is not the speech of “an individual American.” It is the speech of many individual Americans, who have associated in a common cause, giving the leadership of the party the right to speak on their behalf. The association of individuals in a business corporation is no different—or at least it cannot be denied the right to speak on the simplistic ground that it is not “an individual American.”
The majority opinion didn't uphold CU because Corporations have personhood separate from the individual persons and thus should enjoy the same rights, but rather because Corporations are not separate from the individual persons and thus should not be denied the same rights.
That makes even less sense then. Last I checked the corporate veil applies to libel and slander cases, so clearly corporate speech is not the speech of any individual in the corporation.
However, that does suggest that Delaware could ban all corporate political spending in the country by declaring it a breach of fiduciary duty to allow corporate assets to be used to support private causes.
Are you sure that's the opinion itself and not dicta?
Edit: On further reading and research your citation does not support your conclusion - it states the association of individuals to speak for the group, but does maintain the distinction between the individuals and the corporation as speakers.
I do find it problematic though. While a PAC or similar may satisfy the assumption of group speech, a corporation does not since presumably the shareholders do not have a single opinion on most issues.
Posts
The issue is Was being brought up was that it's very hard to construct a legal argument that supports CU but not the rights of unions to practice politics. That you're suggesting it as "horse trading" implies that you don't have a legal argument.
Like I can see both or none. If you feel that corporations should not be able to influence politics then unions would be caught in that net. But if you feel corporations should have unfettered access to politics then unions are not any different. I can even see no CU and unions. Because prior to CU corporations still had some access to politics.
But I can't see CU but no unions. It doesn't make sense
right that's what I was saying. I'd happily support reversing CU if it meant that unions would also be out of the game.
As for philosophical justifications, they really only hold water in closed shops. If you must be in the union, then they shouldn't be able to do politics with your dues.
How would this even work?
Specific issues don't get elected, candidates that are members of political parties do.
But how does that not also apply to CU? If it's too unfair and onerous to have to leave a company because you don't like that company's union's politics, surely it is equally unfair and onerous to have to leave a company because you don't like that company's politics.
It's possible that, as you say, getting a paycheck and contributing dues are two different levels of personal responsibility; but especially when forced, it's more personal to be a representative a company you disagree with than to give money to a union you disagree with, just like there's a difference between working for a government agency whose policies you dislike and legally having to pay taxes to a government whose policies you dislike.
It'd look exactly life if we banned Corporations from supporting candidates or parties which is a pretty common request over on the left. Basically non-human actors don't get to directly get involved in elections. This gets into the whole thing of when an organization of humans ceases to be "a human" for purposes of politics but there is the basis for a sound argument that such institutions do not have a place influencing democratic elections.
As Spool mentioned, we're not gonna get there from here. Certainly not with our current Supreme Court, but it isn't like a crazy bonkers wish.
They are not, and never have been. It's a gross misunderstanding of what "corporate personhood" means that was used to justify CU.
Corporations are a legal construct, and their existence is defined by legislation. They have no intrinsic rights, and are not people. The phrase "corporate personhood" basically means that some of the laws about them allow them act as human analogues for specific purposes - primarily contracts and civil suits. If memory serves, the entire purpose of it was to make it possible for corporations to be held accountable in the first place; without it you have to actually be able to sue some director, who can both be hard to track down (deliberately) and always blame someone else (who blames someone else, who...) to make pinning down responsibility enough to get a judgement difficult. Hence just doing away with that and letting you sue the company as a whole (also appropriate anyways because any responsibility is likely to be diffused among many individuals anyways, which gets into the veil of corporate personhood).
But basically, it's nothing but legislation saying an organization can sue and be sued (and enter contracts) as a collective whole rather than only as individuals. The idea that it confers any rights not explicitly in the legislation is nonsense (certainly speech is not a requirement).
This is not to say that the individuals on the board of directors or whatnot cannot exercise their right to free speech; however they must do so with their assets, not those of the corporation (on which they have fiduciary duties to the shareholders; indeed I think there may be a case for political donations from corporate assets being a breach of fiduciary duties in at least some cases).
Going back to the union case, the argument is basically that since money is fungible and use of assets is zero-sum, any dues paid intrinsically support the political activities of the union. There is a case for that of course. However, that case is exactly the same as corporate assets being spent on politics and the investments of shareholders (or perhaps more analogous would be employee deductions for health plans, mandatory spending on uniforms, etc.). This is money intended for company growth or services but because it's fungible it also supports the company's political spending. You can't argue that it's okay for corporations to take advantage of it and not unions.
Now, this case is specifically about public unions. It tries to use the fig leaf that since public union negotiations affect public spending they're somehow different and you can kneecap public unions for it. Frankly, it's bullshit. Any political lobbying will affect public expenditures, so the political spending can't be differentiated on that regard. The other side of the argument is that since political donations can affect who they have to negotiate with and improperly affect the negotiations process is problematic as well. It runs into the same goose/gander problem since corporations do it all the fucking time while getting government contracts. There's something to it, but you can't just single out public unions for it. And honestly I think the corporate case is worse as a matter of who profits from it (and probably costs the government more as well, though I don't know how you can actually quantify that meaningfully).
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Closed Shops are also already illegal.
Right, that's my point. It's a trade to you. It's not based on a legal or philosophical argument. You aren't, so far as you've stated in this thread, against unions participating in politics because of anything but the fact that they support things you don't like.
Because there can be no trade if there aren't sides. And you've already defined those sides and who's on them.
And saying it's a trade implies a CU reversal is "giving something up" to you, which means you want CU AND a ban on union participation in politics which is a position that has seemingly no legal or philosophical basis here.
We just need SCOTUS to rule that unions are people.
That is so stupid. Everything's all money, and since money is speech, nothing can be restricted! QED.
No, they just have to take free riders, so would have no money to do anything and are thus crippled.
This is especially obvious given who is backing this whole issue.
It's just an attempt to stamp on worker's rights via destroying unions and crippling key Democratic Party support groups.
they're campaigning for the people they have to negotiate with, who will pay them with public funds so that they can spend the funds to help the negotiators get re-elected so they can negotiate more with them for more money that they will take a portion of to campaign for re-election...
You can't see the conflict of interest there?
No more than corporations that have government contracts.
You might as well say that government employees shouldn't be allowed to vote, because they'll vote for the candidates that will pay them more money, conflict of interest!
Hell. You might as well say NOBODY should vote, because we'll all vote for the candidate that will lower our taxes, and that's a conflict of interest.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
The government technically has a choice between contractors, and the decision makers in the bid process are absolutely forbidden from receiving compensation from the corporations. So there is a sort of firewall between the donations and the selection process.
A teacher's union is a sole source situation; it's ethically stickier. If there were competing unions who contributed to politicians but were selected by an equivalent process, then it would be comparable.
E: Which isn't to say it's unethical. A corporation bidding on contracts and a union are functionally very different; enough so that I don't see this as a double standard.
Whaaa? No. The Union gets paid by its members to negotiate. Its returns are given to union members in salary in benefit, not to the union. If the Union does do campaigning it does so with funds given to the union by members voluntarily (as the enforced payment cannot be used for politics) and so the money has no connection to the contract.
I mean there is more issue in corporations where corporations are allowed to negotiate deals with the government and also lobby the government.
No, because a wage is not the same as dues extracted by a 3rd party. Also individuals are different from unions! As you all agree whenever we talk about corporations.
Also we clearly won't all vote for the candidate who lowers taxes, as evidenced by the last 2 Presidential elections.
Let us not pretend that that firewall hasn't been extinguished a long long time ago.
The government also doesn't select unions. Unions are formed to represent the workers the government does select. It's not a ... sourcing situation, period, any more than the Federal government being required to "sole-source" state representatives. I mean, maybe if the federal government were allowed to choose between which Dakota to allow into the union every 2 years....
I don't understand what you're trying to say for the first one. A wage is indeed not the same as dues extracted by a third party. But dues extracted by the third party are not allowed to be used for politics. So the only funds which have any connection to both the political side and the negotiation side came from wages of individuals making free decisions to donate. The exact same/further from conflict of interest as with corporations.
Are we afraid that real wages will actually rise for once after 30 years of stagnation (which was not stagnation of production, so all of that wealth was stolen from labor)?
Are we afraid that the US will finally grant more than zero mandatory days of maternal/paternal leave?
Are we afraid that industry wide collusion to prevent people from changing jobs for better wages, more time with family, a better work environment, etc will be more thoroughly illegal?
Etc.
Unions actually being able to meaningfully affect US policy again, instead of it being entirely dictated by corporate fat cats who are going to put us into a place that fundamentally endangers American values, American power, and American security, is not a reason to be concerned about allowing unions do advocate for the interests of their members in the political sphere, particularly when one candidate is willing to listen, and the other candidate wants to turn them all into near indentured servants.
Money is fungible, union dues can't be firewalled. And I don't disagree with the corporate conflict argument, by the by. I'm happy to reverse CU or restrict corps to issues-only campaigning or remove them entirely alongside doing it to unions.
To draw from my giant post on this a couple days ago, a better analogy than wages would be uniforms. It is to my knowledge legal for a company to require its employees purchase uniforms. The money from said purchase can be spent to lobby the government for whatever the board of directors wants (because money is fungible).
Now, should the corporation be allowed to extract a mandatory payment from employees that can then be spent to further causes they dislike? If so, how does this differ from the case of unions?
Of course, this particular case argues that public sector unions are special because they can spend money to lobby for people who will then give the workers more money. This does not strike me as particularly different from corporations lobbying for politicians who will then award government contracts.
The issue I see here though is simple though. You can't stop unions from lobbying without infringing on free speech rights (of the union, per CU, but by the plaintiff's own arguments it would also infringe the rights of workers who are donating to the union's political fund since they presumably agree with the message). The plaintiffs are instead trying to stop the union from being able to collect dues from all employees. I don't actually think this is possible from a functional level - the union could reach the same goal by collecting no dues from anybody but contracting with the company to just have that money taken out of the paychecks (or rather, not paid out to begin with and adjust compensation accordingly). This would have basically the same effect, because again... money is fungible; there's no difference from a due, a paycheck deduction, or something you're given and don't know you're paying for (as an opportunity cost).
However, I feel the plaintiff's argument is based on a false premise to begin with. Money is fungible... but only within an account. It is entirely possible for a union to maintain sufficiently separated accounts to defeat the fungibility premise. At a minimum, the union could split off a separate organization, incorporate it as a PAC, and just funnel the political donations into it. Functionally identical and the plaintiff's argument collapses. I think it's a fatal flaw in their argument at a fundamental level.
I do fear though that if the court rules adversely it will not respect that difference - from the plaintiff's arguments (as I understand them), a union that does not make political donations itself is still free to collect mandatory dues (which leads to my hypothetical PAC scenario).
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
How do you handle the issue of de facto requirements to participate in GOTV efforts? This is one of the places where even a separate account breaks down in terms of maintaining the firewall.
Interesting though, it gives me angles to think about.
Basically if the base Union due could also not be used for politics regardless of whether or not the payer paid extra then that would be a sufficient firewall
Just think of the savings.
Indeed. There is no politicking without conflict of interest by this definition.
Like, taxes alone mean every single entity in the entire United States of America has a conflict of interest of this sort with voting.
Bread and circuses, am I right?
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Hi, yes. I am a government employee. I like getting paid a fair salary for the tiny portion of the government that I work in, because I do my work damn well and get paid about 40% less than the private sector. I don't mind getting paid less than average for public security, but I do have a right to say that my work is deserving of some sort of compensation and, at times, that a cost of living increase should probably be accomodated.
As of this moment, people in my work at my workplace deal literally 178% more volume than in year 2000 (our service population has almost tripled), cost of living aloe has increased about 18%, and our pay has actually increased less than 2% since 2000 in flat numbers, and factoring cost of living has actually gone down considerably.
My work is worth something, it doesn't matter who is signing the paycheck (be it uncle sam or some ceo). I should have the ability to be paid and be able to negotiate for both fair salary and workforce conditions. If we had a state union for my job classification, I know we would be making a fair wage (the faculty I work with do have a union and actually get only a slightly lower than national median pay because of it, and always get a fair, and negotiated based upon state receipts, cost of living increase that can both be afforded by the state and make sure we retain decent teachers).
Your concern is assuming everyone negotiating in the government are appointee positions, which is vastly false and shows a lack of understanding of who these unions represent.
You can probably find someone unironically using that to argue that people on welfare shouldn't be able to vote.
There are all kinds of special interest groups soliciting the government for money that they might be able to put back into helping the favored government people get elected. Like corporate interest groups that get a good amount of government funding and tax breaks, which they can then use to continue getting favored people elected. Especially in industries that work heavily with the government. Good thing there aren't massive companies that negotiate contracts with the government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_100_Contractors_of_the_U.S._federal_government
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
That makes even less sense then. Last I checked the corporate veil applies to libel and slander cases, so clearly corporate speech is not the speech of any individual in the corporation.
However, that does suggest that Delaware could ban all corporate political spending in the country by declaring it a breach of fiduciary duty to allow corporate assets to be used to support private causes.
Are you sure that's the opinion itself and not dicta?
Edit: On further reading and research your citation does not support your conclusion - it states the association of individuals to speak for the group, but does maintain the distinction between the individuals and the corporation as speakers.
I do find it problematic though. While a PAC or similar may satisfy the assumption of group speech, a corporation does not since presumably the shareholders do not have a single opinion on most issues.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy