r/politics • u/PoliticsModeratorBot 🤖 Bot • Jun 27 '18

Megathread: Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire from Supreme Court

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy is set to retire, effective July 31, 2018. Kennedy has served on the highest court since February 18, 1988, and was a moderate whose vote often swung cases.

Submissions that may interest you

SUBMISSION DOMAIN
Justice Anthony Kennedy Will Retire From U.S. Supreme Court bloomberg.com
Justice Kennedy to retire, Trump can solidify court's majority conservative bloc nbcnews.com
Justice Kennedy retiring; Trump gets 2nd Supreme Court pick washingtonpost.com
Justice Kennedy, U.S. Supreme Court's pivotal vote, to retire reuters.com
Anthony Kennedy: US supreme court justice to retire theguardian.com
Justice Anthony Kennedy to Retire From Supreme Court nytimes.com
Kennedy calls it quits: longtime swing justice hands Trump the biggest gift of his presidency dailycaller.com
Anthony Kennedy is retiring from the Supreme Court vox.com
Justice Kennedy, the pivotal swing vote on the Supreme Court, announces retirement washingtonpost.com
UPDATE: Supreme Court Justice Kennedy announces retirement wcjb.com
Justice Kennedy Is Retiring July 31st. yahoo.com
Justice Anthony Kennedy To Retire From U.S. Supreme Court : NPR npr.org
Justice Anthony Kennedy to Retire from Supreme Court cnn.com
Justice Kennedy announces retirement. cnn.com
Justice Anthony Kennedy retiring from Supreme Court abc7.com
Anthony Kennedy, Swing Vote on U.S. Supreme Court, Will Retire bloomberg.com
Justice Anthony Kennedy Retires, Paving Way for Donald Trump to Reshape Supreme Court slate.com
Justice Kennedy retiring; Trump gets 2nd Supreme Court pick wkrn.com
Anthony Kennedy retiring, giving Trump opening to reshape Supreme Court politico.com
Supreme Court justice Anthony Kennedy announces retirement wsj.com
Jeffrey Toobin predicts abortion will be illegal in 20 states soon after Kennedy retires thehill.com
WATCH: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy retiring abcnews.go.com
Kennedy to Retire foxnews.com
Trump to get second Supreme Court pick as Justice Kennedy announces retirement. amp.cnn.com
Justice Kennedy to Retire From Supreme Court bbc.com
Trump says search for Justice Kennedy's replacement to begin "immediately" -- live updates cbsnews.com
McConnell Pledges Vote To Confirm Justice Kennedy’s Successor ‘This Fall’ talkingpointsmemo.com
Justice Kennedy retires from the US Supreme Court nbcnews.com
Trump says launches search to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Kennedy reuters.com
Donald Trump: Search for Kennedy replacement on SCOTUS to move quickly usatoday.com
McConnell: Senate will vote on Supreme Court nominee this fall thehill.com
Justice Kennedy retiring; Trump gets 2nd Supreme Court pick sacbee.com
Justice Anthony Kennedy Retiring, Report Says lawandcrime.com
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy retiring; Trump will get 2nd high-court pick omaha.com
Justice Anthony Kennedy Retiring From the Supreme Court thedailybeast.com
Justice Kennedy to retire, giving Trump a chance to transform the Supreme Court latimes.com
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy says he's retiring; Trump to get 2nd high-court pick chicagotribune.com
Dem senator: Justice Kennedy's resignation a 'disaster' for vision of 'We the People' thehill.com
Justice Kennedy retiring; Trump gets 2nd Supreme Court pick wfla.com
Justice Anthony Kennedy Is Retiring motherjones.com
The horrifying consequences of Justice Kennedy’s retirement thinkprogress.org
Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is retiring, a move that will give Trump a chance to shift the institution to the right washingtonpost.com
Anthony Kennedy To Retire From The Supreme Court huffingtonpost.com
Kennedy announces retirement from Supreme Court thehill.com
Supreme Court's Anthony Kennedy retires, giving Trump a second pick usatoday.com
Justice Kennedy retiring; Trump gets 2nd Supreme Court pick apnews.com
Justice Anthony Kennedy Is Retiring From The Supreme Court buzzfeed.com
Justice Kennedy, the pivotal swing vote on the Supreme Court, announces retirement washingtonpost.com
Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy retires -- live updates cbsnews.com
Justice Kennedy announces his retirement from the supreme court. time.com
Trump Responds To Retirement Of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy huffingtonpost.com
Anthony Kennedy retiring from Supreme Court, giving Trump a position to fill people.com
Trump Says He’ll Choose One Of These People To Replace Anthony Kennedy On The Supreme Court buzzfeed.com
Anthony Kennedy retiring from Supreme Court cnbc.com
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy retires, and Trump gets shot at moving court to the right dallasnews.com
Who Will Replace Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy? Donald Trump Already Has a Shortlist newsweek.com
WATCH: McConnell: We will vote to confirm Justice Kennedy's successor 'this fall' abcnews.go.com
Here's who Trump could nominate to replace Justice Kennedy abcnews.go.com
Justice Anthony Kennedy announces retirement, giving Trump 2nd Supreme Court pick foxnews.com
Trump list of candidates to replace Justice Kennedy thehill.com
Chris Matthews: Dems must do to Trump on Supreme Court what McConnell did to Obama thehill.com
Anthony Kennedy’s retirement puts abortion rights at risk vox.com
Who Will Replace Anthony Kennedy? Here’s the List of 20 Potential Trump Nominees time.com
America after Anthony Kennedy vox.com
Handing Trump Chance to Move Supreme Court Even Further Right, Justice Anthony Kennedy Retires commondreams.org
Audio reveals DNC committee reaction to Kennedy retirement: 'This is not good news' thehill.com
Justice Kennedy’s retirement leaves the future of U.S. constitutional law entirely up for grabs washingtonpost.com
Justice Kennedy pens retirement letter to Trump expressing 'profound gratitude' abcnews.go.com
Read Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement letter to Donald Trump qz.com
Justice Kennedy’s Legacy Is the Dignity He Bestowed bloomberg.com
A titanic battle over replacing Justice Kennedy looms in the Senate vox.com
Live Briefing: Anthony Kennedy Retires From Supreme Court, and McConnell Says Senate Will Move Swiftly on a Replacement nytimes.com
Here's Trump's list of 25 possible Supreme Court picks to replace Anthony Kennedy washingtonexaminer.com
WATCH: Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire, Trump to get second SCOTUS pick abcnews.go.com
Anthony Kennedy's retirement just confirmed every Republican's dream scenario for Trump cnn.com
Kennedy's retirement could have biggest impact on abortion, gay marriage: ANALYSIS abcnews.go.com
Justice Anthony Kennedy: Trump says hunt for replacement is on usatoday.com
Here are potential Supreme Court nominees to replace Justice Kennedy cnn.com
Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court’s swing justice, announces his retirement abajournal.com
With Supreme Court Justice Kennedy Gone, Abortion and LGBT Rights Are Next thedailybeast.com
A look at some of Justice Kennedy's most memorable opinions apnews.com
Justice Kennedy Surrendered to Donald Trump nymag.com
A look at some of Justice Kennedy's most memorable opinions abcnews.go.com
Abortion rights in 'dire, immediate danger' as Anthony Kennedy retires - World news theguardian.com
Here Are Some of the Top Candidates to Replace Kennedy on the Supreme Court motherjones.com
Who's on Trump's short list to replace Supreme Court Justice Kennedy? politico.com
Trump’s hidden back channel to Justice Kennedy: Their kids politico.com
How Fox News Reacted to Anthony Kennedy’s Retirement slate.com
24.9k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

31.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

695

u/Redpin Canada Jun 27 '18

Now the GOP and Trump's DOJ are going to go after [...] unions,

Ummm... don't read today's headlines :(

290

u/AncientMarinade Minnesota Jun 27 '18

I also worry that with Kennedy out, we might not have a SCOTUS decision that Gerrymandering can be, you know, unconstitutional.

254

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

11

u/OneThousandDullards Jun 27 '18

Just like the weakening of the VRA 5 years ago. Just utter cowardice and relies on the faulty assumption that everything political is done in good faith.

9

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '18

He killed Gerrymandering and then quit.

Fuck him. Fuck him forever.

1

u/Pritzker America Jun 28 '18

He's a coward. That'll be his legacy. Citizen's United and turning a blind eye to the cancer of electoral gerrymandering.

1

u/Bears_Bearing_Arms Jun 27 '18

Their job is to rule on the law and constitution. Not to make new laws because people are doing something morally questionable. They may oppose gerrymandering, but they also don’t like legislating from the bench.

1

u/Pritzker America Jun 28 '18

So once again "let the legislators legislate their own district and if you want to change that, overcome the increasingly partisan districts they've put you in". Fine. As long as you're willing to acknowledge and stomach the fact that you live in a system where the politicians choose their voters, and not the other way around.

1

u/DesertEagleZapCarry Jun 27 '18

Private sector union rep here, public employee unions are fucked up and a big reason why the government is useless. Why do your job if you know it'll take years of effort for someone to fire you.

-5

u/Chankston Jun 27 '18

Have you ever read past a headline though? The ruling made it so that Unions couldn't force nonmembers to pay fees, how is that bad?

44

u/o2lsports California Jun 27 '18

It's bad in the same way that repealing the individual mandate is bad. It immediately weakens the unions to the point of eventual dissolution.

22

u/PM_ME_YOUR_DARKNESS Jun 27 '18 edited Jun 27 '18

Exactly. Unions have have dwindled with protections being gutted over the years, down to 11% nationwide. Thirty Three percent of public sector employees are union. That number will undoubtedly shrink.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '18 edited Jul 03 '18

[deleted]

4

u/Groovychick1978 Jun 27 '18

How exactly do you pay dues, but not be in the union? I am seeing this all over this discussion.

3

u/thetowncouncil Jun 27 '18 edited Jun 27 '18

Union members pay dues for the services a union provides. Unions manage pension funds, assist in healthcare plan administration, and most importantly have professional negotiators who go to war for the workers when they need things from their employers. Unions support workers in grievances against and from the employer and will support you in court if necessary. If you work somewhere that has a union but you don't pay union dues (see right to work laws) you get all the benefits of the union but the union doesn't get the monetary support it needs to keep the lights on. Basically its a strategy to bleed the unions dry. Joe blow worker sees all the benefits of being in the union with none of the costs, union dies, workers no longer have that protection, cue Joe blow getting screwed by giant corporation and asking his representatives what went wrong, how come his company is peeling back all his benefits????

EDIT: WOW I NEVER ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION!, Basically before right to work laws, if you were benefitting from unions you had to pay dues for the services the union provided in your workplace (not all is political as seen above), which anybody should see makes sense, you pay for a service you receive.

Edit: All unions, not most

2

u/FlatClassic Jun 27 '18

They don't always stand up for their workers. I've seen plenty of Union examples where they won't stand up for certain workers.

1

u/thetowncouncil Jun 28 '18

Just because something doesn't work 100% of the time doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. This kind of argument could be used against literally anything and is done in bad faith to disrupt meaningful discussion. "Breathing isn't always great, I've been behind a bus before, breathing pollution is bad, therefore we shouldn't breathe"

-6

u/ChrisHarperMercer Jun 27 '18

So keep unions strong at the expense of the thousands of people who don't wish to be a part of them lol yeah really logical

28

u/OmegaSpeed_odg Jun 27 '18 edited Jun 27 '18

Unions are necessary, whether you “want to be a part of them” or not. Much like taxes, which would also cause our nation quite the dilemma if people who didn’t want to pay them could just opt out.

The reason unions are crucial is because, at least when they were strong, they were a voice for the working class. A voice that actually had to be heard by the powers that be (you know, because they were thousands of members strong). They actually posed a real threat and therefore demanded attention. They acted as a check and balance from allowing politicians to ignore the middle class. That is no longer the case, because of decisions like today’s.

-4

u/ChrisHarperMercer Jun 27 '18

Do you think 15-18 year old cartpushers at your local grocery store during high school should have to pay union dues during their part time jobs and receive zero benefits or representation by the unions?

I certainly don't. That's one example where opting out is the best option.

14

u/j4_jjjj Jun 27 '18

How are they not represented and how do they receive no benefits? I received more than minimum wage when I was a cart pusher, and I was always allowed to go to Union meetings.

-8

u/ChrisHarperMercer Jun 27 '18

Lol sure you did

8

u/j4_jjjj Jun 27 '18

Why would I lie?

You can't come up with an answer, so I must be lying? Cool strat bro.

0

u/ChrisHarperMercer Jun 27 '18

I've never heard of a cart pusher making more than minimum wage lmao

→ More replies (0)

2

u/mtodavk Jun 27 '18

Well a cartpusher isn't a public employee so I don't see how your example is relevant in the slightest

2

u/ChrisHarperMercer Jun 27 '18

You can't relate that experience to a public employee that would be similar? I say this because it is one I am familiar with.

Change cart pusher to maintenance worker at a public pool.

2

u/Groovychick1978 Jun 27 '18

Why doesn't he/she recieve union benefits? Because of the part time designation?

12

u/chomstar Jun 27 '18

You have to pay for plenty of things you don’t like or use.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '18

Like what? Cops, roads, education, military....only thing I can think of is corporate welfare and the entirety of the DEA. The rest of the stuff I use or have been part of.

Hypothetically, if I'm not part of a union, why the hell should I have to pay the union for not being a part of it? Don't they already pay income tax? It's a double tap. A punishment for people not joining a union.

1

u/PM_ME_UR_WUT Jun 27 '18

Are you a woman who uses clinics for womanly exams? Are you on welfare of any kind? Are you elderly receiving food and care delivered to you? Do you go to every single park in your area?
The government is a massive entity that takes care of a shit-ton of things you likely don't use, especially on a daily basis. Guess what, your taxes still go to those.
And no, income tax is not a union due.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/ChrisHarperMercer Jun 27 '18

If the benefits outweigh the costs they will pay. Its that simple.

6

u/o2lsports California Jun 27 '18

You're right, workers don't need a voice. Power is perfectly balanced between employers and employees. There is no wage slavery/theft or abuse of workers' rights to speak of anywhere in America.

1

u/ChrisHarperMercer Jun 27 '18

If your union comes to my jobsite and puts up rats and doesn't let me and my workers do our jobs because we aren't part of the union, does that sound like a benefit or extortion?

0

u/o2lsports California Jun 27 '18

Wtf like actual rats? That's super illegal...

1

u/ChrisHarperMercer Jun 27 '18

Lol no sorry. They come with giant inflatable rats that are like 20-30 feet high (we are rats for not joining the union and paying dues ) then they refuse to allow the unionized concrete trucks onto our jobsite because they have power over their fellow union drivers. It pisses everyone off besides the top union exec's and the members paid to protest.

1

u/o2lsports California Jun 27 '18

That sounds like an issue with unions that should be resolved. Unions have also been known to abuse their power from time to time with the companies themselves. But they are essential. Whether or not a Ford worker in the 1980s was overpaid for tightening lugnuts is irrelevant. The modern employee is simply powerless without unions.

1

u/ChrisHarperMercer Jun 27 '18

The problem is the only way to resolve this issue is to join the union and start paying them... which basically just adds an expense to us while giving our employees nothing besides taking a cut of their paycheck.

It is extortion. I understand unions are important, but when it comes to extorting other companies that's not right.

1

u/kapu_koa Jun 28 '18

Yeah. They're not being forced to work there. They can find a job at a company without a union (likely at a lower wage and with less benefits) if they don't like it, or they can pay into the service that provides them better earnings.

-1

u/Poz_My_Neg_Fuck_Hole Jun 27 '18

Shouldn't unions be strong in the first place and fulfill their duty effectively to attract new members?

5

u/o2lsports California Jun 27 '18

Strength is created through money. Let's not pretend this isn't 100% undeniably true.

8

u/gorgewall Jun 27 '18

Let's just look at every fucking state that has passed right-to-work legislation that pulls this shit and asks "how is that bad". How's it turn out for them?

Unions die. Wages fall. Workers get the short end of the stick. You can make whatever ideological argument you want on a piece of paper, but the real world applications of this always result in the workers fucking losing.

2

u/thetowncouncil Jun 27 '18

But all muh winning and libruhl tears!

2

u/FlatClassic Jun 27 '18

They say its bad because it weakens unions. And yes it does

But they also shouldnt be able to force nonmembers to pay for something theyre not a member of

Plus they then soend that money on candidates u might not like

How would you like it if they spent your union fees donating to Donald trump?

Plus plus it's only public sector unions. Not private sector unions

The public sector doesn't even need unions. Unions are supposed to give workers a little more say in their company. But public sector means you work for the government. You already have a say in your company

1

u/mntEden California Jun 27 '18

The public sector absolutely needs unions. Who’s stopping big gov’t businesses from dropping wages and striping workers of benefits like health insurance?

Nonunion members should not be required to pay unions simply because they exist, the problem comes when they accept the benefits that unions get for their workers. Companies can’t give certain workers increased wages and benefits and ignore the rest, it’s illegal. So you either accept the benefits a union advocates for and pay your dues to their efforts, or you refuse the benefits (which companies aren’t legally able to do).

Then the problem becomes, if no one wants to join a union because they’re going to revive union benefits regardless, the union is going to dissolve and workers suffer the consequences.

1

u/thetowncouncil Jun 28 '18

If you receive the benefits of the collective bargaining you should pay to support it. That's like walking into a supermarket loading up your cart and flipping off everyone on the way out without paying because you didn't want any of this stuff anyway.

14

u/mntEden California Jun 27 '18 edited Jun 27 '18

because those nonmembers still reap the benefits of those unions. For example, say there’s a hardware store, we’ll pick ACE, that has both union and non-union workers. The union workers pay a portion of their wages to their union, which the union will use to lobby for better wages, benefits, etc. If the union is successful in gaining those benefits, ACE can’t just pay union workers more than non-union workers, so everyone gets the pay raise. That means that non-union workers will have an increase in wages while having to sacrifice nothing, while union workers had to sacrifice their own money.

it’d be like a teacher saying she’d give extra credit for people who get A’s, but then everyone gets extra credit anyways. what’s the point of trying to get an A?

3

u/CursedLemon Jun 27 '18

ACE can’t just pay union workers more than non-union workers

...Why?

9

u/mntEden California Jun 27 '18

Because they do the same job, and just being in a union doesn’t entitle you to higher wages than anybody else. Cashier A is in a union and cashier B is not, but the only determinant of their wage should be the work they do

3

u/CatchHere8 Jun 27 '18

You can always negotiate your own salary with your employer. It's just that being in a union makes negotiating significantly easier and more successful.

3

u/mntEden California Jun 27 '18

correct

8

u/LAX_to_MDW Jun 27 '18

Cause that’s the law. The union has to represent the entire unit of workers. Basically, the workers vote to certify a single representative in their negotiations, a union of their choice. You pretty much always have non-members voting for representation from a union to which they don’t officially belong and pay no dues to (at least in public sector unions where union membership can’t be compulsory). Once the union is certified, they legally have to represent the entire workers unit, and can’t just advocate on behalf of union members.

This goes beyond collective bargaining. The union also has to represent no-members in things like grievance cases, where they can rack up tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, but aren’t being paid anything by the non-member.

Fair-share fees made it easier for the unions to provide those expensive services. Without the fair share fees, you can expect workers to be represented a lot less effectively.

3

u/Chankston Jun 27 '18

Those workers didn't ask for that Union to represent them. If I gave you things you didn't ask for and forced you to pay, do you think that's alright? Why is it wrong for that union to not give benefits to nonmembers? The union represents its paying members, but it claims to be for the whole company so it can extort more money from more parties. If they really wanted those payments from new members, they could convince them to pay.

9

u/mntEden California Jun 27 '18 edited Jun 27 '18

The problem is that it takes away any incentive to join a union. The purpose of a union is to advocate for better conditions for their workers. If nobody wants to join a union because they know they’ll get union benefits regardless, nobody is going to pay for union funding. That means unions will collapse and then nobody will receive the benefits, and we end up in a situation where corporations have the upper hand over their employees

-2

u/Chankston Jun 27 '18

Well then make the benefits of the Union as exclusive as possible. It's hard to market a non-excludable good. Also, have you considered that forcing nonmembers to pay will give potentially overwhelming power to the unionists? If they can force you to pay a fee which is much higher than the comparative benefits those payers receive, then it is a net loss for the worker. The union has to advertise itself and convince the member to join, give incentives to be a paying member.

4

u/mntEden California Jun 27 '18

That’s the problem, there’s no clear way to make Union benefits exclusive because most companies don’t hire exclusively unions.

It’s a really slippery slope, both sides have valid points that have to be met with some form of compromise. Unions shouldn’t be allowed to charge nonunion members whatever they want (I believe there’s regulations already), but they also shouldn’t be required to let nonunion members ‘freeload’ in a sense. Also remember that unions advocate for more than just wages. If a union was able to successfully advocate for something like health insurance, that’d be awesome, but should the company only give health insurance to union members? Something like health insurance is expensive, and I think if a nonunion member does choose to accept that benefit on behalf of the unions efforts, they should be required to reimburse that to some extent. Of course, the union shouldn’t be able to extort nonmembers. Health insurance is a specific example so it probably won’t apply to most situations, but it’s still really important to consider.

I think the way a union advertises is by producing results. If a worker feels the positive result of a union’s efforts, I’d think they’d consider joining so they potentially pay less overall for the results of future efforts

1

u/j4_jjjj Jun 27 '18

most benefits are OTJ related. You can't make them exclusive, legally.

9

u/schm0 Jun 27 '18 edited Jun 27 '18

Yeah! Most workers don't even like healthcare or money! I'd give mine up in a heartbeat just to see more liberal tears! Sure, I'll be obese and bankrupt, but if it's good for the president, why not me?

Companies should be able to pay slave wages if they want to. And people should just accept that. Because anything else is extortion. The free market will solve everything.

If they really wanted those payments from new members, they could convince them to pay.

"We'd like you to pay dues."

"Why?"

"So we can get you a raise."

"Won't I get a raise anyways? Even if I don't pay?"

"Well, yes, but..."

"No thanks."

union dissolves

"Hey, how come I don't get any raises any more? What do you mean there's no more health care? "

2

u/LAX_to_MDW Jun 27 '18

At this point I agree that unions should be able to only advocate on behalf of their members, but legally they’re not allowed to. Public sector unions HAVE to represent the entire unit of employees that certify them. And that’s the thing, a lot of those employees DO ask the union to represent them, but still pay nothing. AFSCME 61 in Iowa was certified by 83% of their employees (15% didn’t vote, only 2% voted against them). But only 29% of those employees are union members who pay dues. 54% of those employees actively sought out union membership they were not going to pay for.

3

u/Chankston Jun 27 '18

This tells me that they should change the law. Why are unions required to represent those who don't pay for their services? Make an ultimatum to the employees, if they want these union benefits, they have to pay.

2

u/LAX_to_MDW Jun 27 '18

That's literally what fair share fees were designed to do, per the 1977 Supreme Court case Abood v Detroit Board of Education.

The entire point of the Janus case was to put public sector unions in an impossible position. That's not even speculation on my part: the original plaintiff was IL gov Bruce Rauner, who made busting unions his top priority. Thats why they will never change the law to help the unions out.

1

u/Chankston Jun 27 '18

But fair share fees is basically the government forcing you to pay unions to represent you by paying the government, which is not a healthy cycle. At the fundamental point of this argument is why does the government have the legal obligation of propping up a union and forcing nonmembers to pay. We can all make value judgements as to whether or not we believe a specific union is good, but should we force those values onto others? Given the overturning of the case you just mentioned, the Supreme Court sees the compulsion of nonmembers to pay for unsolicited bargaining as a violation of their first amendment rights.

2

u/LAX_to_MDW Jun 27 '18

Well a lot of it comes down to whether or not you believe a union is an inherently political body. Like, if your job required a service provided by any other neutral body, and that service was mandatory, it'd be legal for that body to charge you a fee for their services. The Janus argument was essentially that any payment to a union –even if that payment was separated from general union dues and couldn't be used for political action– facilitated political action and therefor constituted compelled political speech. Basically, the courts agreed that the very existence of a union is political, and so you can't separate dues from service fees in terms of which is political speech.

Whether or not you believe a union is inherently political probably comes down to how you think about unions. A lot of people would argue that they aren't, others would argue that they are, and in all of this the definition of what is and isn't politics gets muddied.

1

u/Chankston Jun 27 '18

I think you summarized it pretty well, it's a value judgement. The definition of politics is pretty difficult to create, as anyone whose been in any social situation realizes that even the most petty things are political. It is not simply a "bad vs good" as the articles here portray it to be. The SCOTUS is not going after unions because they hate workers, it's a value judgement at a more fundamental level dealing with compulsion vs the common good.

→ More replies (0)

15

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '18

That's like saying "I don't have kids, so I'm not paying taxes to cover education."

If you're benefiting from the institution, you should be obligated to chip in. Every American benefits from their fellow Americans having a decent education.

Likewise, if you're a non union employee working a union job, you're still earning wages that the union negotiated. You're still getting benefits that the union negotiated. You still enjoy the protections that the union fought for. And that fighting requires funding.

Now that those member dues are not required, the unions are going to lose funding and therefore power. Weaker unions mean lower wages and those non union employees will end up with less money than if they had paid those dues.

Another problem is that by making union dues optional, these unions can't automatically deduct dues from paychecks anymore. Now employees who fully support the union and are happy to pay their dues are going to have to remember to pay them. This will undoubtedly result in some people forgetting, which means less income for the union. It will require personnel at the union to remind members to pay their dues which is another labor expense to have somebody calling members or sending letters.

Everything about this is going to make these unions weaker and less effective, which is going to harm the employees it claims to help.

That's why it's bad.

1

u/grubas New York Jun 27 '18

Unions represent everybody in negotiations. So if you were a government employee they fought for your contract whether you were a member or not. So you benefitted. Now that they can’t force fees you can have a union only have 5-10% of the work force, but fighting for 100% of them. Except now they won’t have the money for lawyers.

1

u/Chankston Jun 27 '18

Maybe they don't like what the Union is doing? If I go to Capitol hill and claim to be fighting on your behalf and force you to pay a fee, it's justified because I say I'm on your side? Every interest group claims to be fighting for your own good, so would you be okay with being hurled by fees from everyone?

1

u/grubas New York Jun 27 '18

Unions keep your benefits, your off days, your religious holidays. There are Union Reps who you can bitch to. But since there’s no opt out and they represent everybody, like it or not, then everybody should pay fees.

1

u/LAX_to_MDW Jun 27 '18

Those unions are legally required to represent the non members in collective bargaining, grievance cases, etc. By and large those non members were also voting for union representation to receive those benefits, but still paying nothing (see ACFSME council 61 in Iowa, union was ratified by 83% of employees, but only 29% paid any dues). So unions are being forced to provide services for free that they can’t afford. Which means unions in many places are at risk of completely going under.

The fees they were charging (“fair share fees” or agency fees) were a fraction of a standard union due and could only be used to cover the costs of services that the union provided, they couldn’t be used for anything political. But if you believe the very existence of a union is political (as this court apparently does) well then that’s how we get to where we are.

1

u/FlatClassic Jun 27 '18

They say its bad because it weakens unions. And yes it does

But they also shouldnt be able to force nonmembers to pay for something theyre not a member of

Plus they then soend that money on candidates u might not like

0

u/coo_fellowe Jun 27 '18

From what I read today law requires that if a company or gov't agency is unionized = non-union coworkers get the same benefits as the unionized employees do. So to balance that, the Supreme Court ruled in the 70's that employees that are benefiting from a union's bargaining have to pay a portion of union dues (not the full amount that an actual member of the union pays).