Trump has entered the Querencia Phase of his presidency

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 3141 - 3160 of total 3990 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Happiegrrrl2

Trad climber
Jun 28, 2018 - 10:49am PT
Damned those unions, for demanding a limit to work hours, requiring potty breaks, and asking for pay that allows a person the ability to save for retirement, thus not being worked to death - literally.

What killed US manufacturing was a cocktail of disallowing the practice of adding unmitigated toxicity to the environment, a push toward imported materials and goods at the cheapest prices available, and lest we forget - a population that preferred not to perform mind-numbing, health-crippling, repetitive stress injuring work.

Go to a Walmart and you see a whole lot of "America First" supporters who would think only a fool would pay more for a t-shirt made in this country and printed by hand by the artisan who created the graphic art that an imported knock off of the very same design.

mooch

Trad climber
Tribal Base Camp (Riverkern Annex)
Jun 28, 2018 - 11:06am PT
Trump will probably get two more scotus picks.

Spell check police alert!! The word you're looking for is 'scrotum'. You're welcome.
blahblah

Gym climber
Boulder
Jun 28, 2018 - 11:17am PT
Damned those unions, for demanding a limit to work hours, requiring potty breaks, and asking for pay that allows a person the ability to save for retirement, thus not being worked to death - literally.

If you like unions, you're more than welcome to contribute as much as you'd like to them.
But when the government forces workers to give money to unions as a condition of government employment, that's a problem. Get it? It's not super complicated.
Basically the old regime was allowed because of really weird old case that carved out an exception to normal free speech law cuz the Supreme Court at that time wanted to throw a bone to public-employee unions.
The current Court said enough is enough, applied basic First Amendment principles, and is restoring a little common sense jurisprudence.

Sorry that upsets the libs, but that's the way it's gonna be for a LONG time (at least if nothing happens to Thomas) so don't let the door hit you on the way out if you have a problem with it!

And if Ginsburg can't make it through Trump's term (at least least when there's a Repub Sentate), I almost feel sorry for you, it's kind of gonna take all the fun out of waiting for SCOTUS decisions cuz we all know what's gonna happen-- basically you're totally screwed if you can't get your lib polices enacted by democratically elected officials and want the old liberal Court to help you out. Those days are long gone.
A Essex

climber
Jun 28, 2018 - 11:36am PT
the union thing will affect those that voted for tRump the most.

let the fat, slack jawed deplorables work 60 hours a week for minimum wage while waving a flag and praying to Haysus, #MAGA .

Now that Gestapo ICE is roudning up the brown slave labor caste, the fat rednecks can proudly pack meat to country music instead of mexican polka while paying for their fat wives pill and soda habits

Bernie was pro-union, killary less so, but the unions backed her over him anyway

the socialist deomocrat revolution is coming, Schumer and Pelosi need to retire their sad old brand of politics and get the hell out of the way

I'm upping my stock holdings on old-style wire coat hangers....
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath

Social climber
Wilds of New Mexico
Jun 28, 2018 - 11:36am PT
It's certainly been argued that promoters of some agendas over rely on the federal courts. True or not those days are over. I think we are looking at preordained results in all cases involving social issues, corporate interests, environmental protection, etc., for the rest of our lives.

The good news is that winning elections is still an option!


StahlBro

Trad climber
San Diego, CA
Jun 28, 2018 - 01:00pm PT
The GOP is making sure Corporate America can screw you at will. And Trumpies just bend over and take it, hoping for a reach-around.
fear

Ice climber
hartford, ct
Jun 28, 2018 - 01:08pm PT
The GOP is making sure Corporate America can screw you at will

Shhhhhhhhh!

I let you in on a little secret.... that happens no matter which of your favorite 'teams' has the head puppet position.
eeyonkee

Trad climber
Golden, CO
Jun 28, 2018 - 01:19pm PT
I'm pissed at Kennedy for deciding to retire just a few months before the mid-terms! Sheesh, considering what the republicans did to Obama in not bringing up his scotus nomination for nearly a year before the last presidential elections, this feels extremely unfair. I would have hoped that he would have felt that way. Maybe he got bought off.
blahblah

Gym climber
Boulder
Jun 28, 2018 - 01:36pm PT
I'm pissed at Kennedy for deciding to retire just a few months before the mid-terms! Sheesh, considering what the republicans did to Obama in not bringing up his scotus nomination for nearly a year before the last presidential elections, this feels extremely unfair. I would have hoped that he would have felt that way. Maybe he got bought off.

LMFAO--so a Justice who is over 80 freaking years old decides to retire and people think he's bought off! :))
And not to say Justices should play the retire when the Prez-is-one-their-guys game, but if they do, Kennedy is a freaking conservative who was appointed by Ronald Ray-Gun! (yeah Kennedy seemed a little moderate, but that's only compared to some of the other guys, who are basically as right wing as they come. He's been a very reliable conservative on the important issues, obviously he's got a soft spot for gay rights--I kinda like the guy!)


(And not that it matters, but I do believe the Repubs tactic with Garland was "unfair" and sets a terrible precedent. The Repubs should have duly considered Garland and then simply voted his liberal ass back down.)
10b4me

Social climber
Lida Junction
Jun 28, 2018 - 01:54pm PT
LMFAO--so a Justice who is over 80 freaking years old decides to retire

That f*#ker should have retired at 65, like everybody else.
Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Jun 28, 2018 - 02:04pm PT
I've never understood forced contributions to unions.

But then again, I'm not a fascist.

What the Supreme Court lackeys ignored in their decision is that unions are run by the members. If they don't like the politics of their leaders, they have the mechanisms to replace them. So, if you dislike the fact that as a union member your income is a third higher than nonunion workers, and you hate the fact that you get a vacation and it burns you that the boss's son can't fire you for whatever reason, you can elect like minded suck ups to run the union.
Tom

Big Wall climber
San Luis Obispo CA
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 28, 2018 - 02:16pm PT
I do believe the Repubs tactic with Garland was "unfair" and sets a terrible precedent.

That's the Republican way, ever since 1992. Before that, both parties were able to cooperate, at least to some degree. With the ascendancy of the Gin Grinch to Speaker of the House, Republicans in Congress became less amiable, and more combative. Obstruction, rather than cooperation, was the Gin Grinch's battle cry.

The rhetoric from the Republicans now is that the Democrats are the obstructionists.


The Republicans are like schoolyard bullies who punch a kid in the face, and then complain when the other kid hits them back in the face.

Trump supporters calling for civility and tolerance is an exquisite example of the hypocritical double-standard that is a Republican trademark.


Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Jun 28, 2018 - 02:34pm PT
The Abood Court said that a state could balance managing its employees and labor interests to avoid “free rider” situations where non-union workers benefited from a union’s advocacy for pay raises and other benefits without paying for the negotiation process.

The GOP loves freeloaders. The parasites at the top who are sucking the life out of this country, the Republicans only exist to do their bidding.
Tom

Big Wall climber
San Luis Obispo CA
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 28, 2018 - 02:52pm PT
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Assolutamente













They've put those "core values" in the same dumpster that they've put fiscal responsibility and a balanced Federal budget.

It's a tragic episode of Whores Gone Wild.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
NutAgain!

Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
Jun 28, 2018 - 03:25pm PT
Workers most in need of union protections are the ones least likely to have discretionary budgets for union dues! Keeping gas in the car and lights on in the house and food on the table and paying medical bills all take precedence, and many people struggle with these basics. Making dues optional is tantamount to killing a union.

The Supreme Court has ruled that government employees don't have to pay union dues, which will ultimately lead to the death/irrelevance of unions for government jobs. Instead of our government being the shining example of how to structure our society to balance the needs of employers (to make a profit) and employees (to have livable conditions even if they are not endowed with special/rare skills), it has followed corporations toward the perdition of humanity.

The herd is being thinned. Will you and your offspring survive?

Is your area of specialization safe from AI? Can you perform some task better than a machine, and is someone willing to keep paying you for that? We can each pretend like we are special/different and that this only affects someone else, all those other lazy slobs who didn't study or relaxed on weekends while we were working hard to better ourselves. But pretty soon we who feel unaffected will realize we are standing alone and nobody is left to defend us when we thought we were safe.


Dingus Milktoast

Trad climber
Minister of Moderation, Fatcrackistan
Jun 28, 2018 - 03:54pm PT
Enforced union dues on on non-union memebers was a gross violation on the freedom to associate. If a union becomes irrelevant due to a lack of membership then that union Is already irrelevant. Grifting money from non-union workers is just wrong. But you guys clearly know better and what’s best for those non-union knuckleheads and where and how they should spend their money and whatever else you assume you have a right to enforce on them.

This from someone who recognizes the value of unions. That you don’t understand
How offensive this f*#ked up law was is sad.

DMT
Lennox

climber
in the land of the blind
Jun 28, 2018 - 04:06pm PT
The Janus decision is appropriately named; it has two faces.

The conservative justices may rue the day they elevated collective bargaining to first amendment protected free speech.


THE RIGHT IS TRYING TO TAKE DOWN PUBLIC SECTOR UNIONS. IT MAY BRING MUCH MORE DOWN WITH IT.
Rachel M. Cohen
February 25 2018

IN THE MIDDLE of last week, Dixon O’Brien, a 60-year-old engineer, and his union, the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150, quietly filed a federal lawsuit against Lincolnshire, a village in a northern suburb of Chicago. Together they raised issue with Lincolnshire officials using taxpayer dollars to fund a statewide lobbying group, the Illinois Municipal League, which advocates for things like limiting collective bargaining and reducing pension benefits. “O’Brien objects to the use of his tax money to fund private organizations that lobby and/or engage in other political activities that run directly against his economic interests and his political beliefs,” the complaint reads.

On Thursday, the head of the same union filed a federal lawsuit against Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner, challenging portions of state law that requires unions to provide representational services to non-dues paying members. “It is absurd that state law forces unions to provide equal representation and service to public sector workers who are not members and pay nothing toward associated costs,” said union President James Sweeney in a statement.

And then on Friday, the International Union of Operating Engineers Locals 139 and 420 filed a federal lawsuit against Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, challenging a law he signed in 2011 that dramatically restricts public employee collective bargaining rights. The unions argue that the law’s restrictions impinge upon their protected free speech rights under the First Amendment.

These three consecutive lawsuits are a warning to the Supreme Court that if it buys into an extreme conservative argument being used to undermine labor unions, the justices are going to take a lot more than just agency fees down with them.

On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31 – a case experts have long predicted could strike a mortal blow to public sector unions. The plaintiff, an Illinois state worker named Mark Janus, has argued that he has a First Amendment right to avoid paying anything to a union that bargains on his behalf. With the current ideological leanings of the court, the plaintiff — and the conservative groups backing his lawsuit — face strong odds of victory.

But while most of the media has focused on the fact that the Janus case stands to decimate union coffers – and by extension, Democratic Party coffers – some labor activists and legal scholars have begun sounding the alarm on what they say would be the unintended consequences of the suit, effectively opening up the floodgates for countless lawsuits like the recent ones filed by the International Union of Operating Engineers. If Janus doesn’t have to pay his agency fees because collective bargaining is speech he disagrees with, then collective bargaining is speech. And it can’t be restricted. Indeed, when some of Janus’s lazier advocates lay out the case, they accidentally argue on behalf of unions’ right to free speech. “Because government is both employer and policymaker, collect­ive bargaining by the union is inherently political advocacy and indistinguishable from lobbying,” wrote George Will on Sunday, directly implicating the First Amendment.

For more than 40 years, the Supreme Court has held that there’s a constitutional difference between a union’s political activities and its collective bargaining work. Compelling workers to fund the former would infringe on their freedom of speech, the court ruled in 1977. But under current law, collective bargaining is different. Imposing conditions, such as requiring mandatory dues or limiting the scope of their negotiations to wages and benefits, is fair game.

If the Janus plaintiffs win their case, this critical distinction would be dismantled. (A decision is expected by June, when the court’s term ends.) A union’s bargaining and political lobbying would be treated the same — as protected free speech. In other words, the court would actually be elevating the free speech standards of bargaining. That, in turn, could bring with it new legal protections.

If the Janus plaintiffs win their case, a union’s bargaining and political lobbying would be treated the same.
“If the plaintiffs are right that collective bargaining is political speech indistinguishable from lobbying, well, the flip side of that coin is that that protected free speech can’t be restricted,” said Ed Maher, a spokesperson for the International Union of Operating Engineers. “We don’t think this has been thoughtfully considered by the plaintiffs, and it is our belief that a win for Janus will open a tremendous Pandora’s box.”

This Pandora’s box, Maher suggested to The Intercept, holds all sorts of chaotic possibilities for the U.S. legal system and state governments across the country. Nearly all states impose some form of restriction on collective bargaining, limiting who can bargain and what workers can bargain over. If the Janus plaintiffs win in court, the theory goes, then workers could start bringing First Amendment challenges to limitations on their bargaining rights, like the restrictions Walker, the Wisconsin governor, passed in 2011.

And, as the three cases filed last week demonstrate, they’ve already started.

COURTS HAVE LONG sought to avoid applying First Amendment rights to unions. From the earliest court decisions that concerned worker protests in the 19th century, as labor writer and strategist Shaun Richman has written, judges have tended to treat unions “as criminal conspiracies that interfere with employers’ property and contract rights.” And while courts have chipped away further at the free speech rights of workers and unions over the last half-century, they have also expanded the free speech protections afforded to employers and corporations.

Ann C. Hodges, a labor law professor at the University of Richmond, agrees that a win for the Janus plaintiffs could invite all sorts of new legal challenges. Writing recently for the American Constitution Society, Hodges said:

Courts have regularly ruled that states like Wisconsin can provide collective bargaining rights to some groups of employees and not others, using the rational basis test to find no equal protection violation. … But if all union activity is protected political speech, then these distinctions implicate fundamental rights, invoking strict scrutiny for such classifications. Thus, the differential treatment of employee groups by the states may not survive. Indeed, unions may even have an argument that there is a constitutional right to collective bargaining.

Equally unlikely to survive are many governmental employer restrictions on employee speech. A long line of cases allows government employers to impose various restrictions on employee speech. The Supreme Court distinguishes employee from citizen speech, permitting employers to limit and control employee speech in the interests of the government as employer. … A ruling in favor of the Janus plaintiffs could obliterate the distinction, requiring employers to tolerate much unwanted speech by their employees.

Some left activists remain understandably skeptical that Janus could lead to some interesting or even good opportunities for labor, arguing, as Richman wrote, that a judiciary “that could buy such a craven argument as Janus will refuse to take the precedent to its logical conclusion and shamelessly waving away workers’ free speech rights.” But if the anti-Trump backlash leads to a wave of liberal judge appointments, the legal landscape could grow significantly more friendly for unions over the next few election cycles. Plus, unless Janus ends with an extremely narrow ruling, it would be a while before the Supreme Court could really stamp out all the knock-on cases, even if it wanted to. In other words, legal chaos could reign for years in the lower courts.

Richman goes so far as to say that Janus “could hand new liberal majorities a roadmap for restoring a legal balance of power between corporations and workers.” Or, as Sweeney of Local 150 puts it, “The free speech rights being invoked by the union-busters behind Janus work both ways.”

https://theintercept.com/2018/02/25/conservatives-public-sector-unions-janus/
Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Jun 28, 2018 - 04:21pm PT
Workers most in need of union protections are the ones least likely to have discretionary budgets for union dues!

That's the beauty of collective bargaining, You have discretionary income.

But you guys clearly know better and what’s best for those non-union knuckleheads and where and how they should spend their money and whatever else you assume you have a right to enforce on them.

And those guys who refuse to pay into their union, will also refuse the better benefits, working conditions and wages that the union brings to the table?
Tom

Big Wall climber
San Luis Obispo CA
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 28, 2018 - 04:23pm PT
In re Janus, the Republicans want to have their cake, and eat it, too.

Faux-clever maneuvering eventually leads to contradictory results, with the weakness of the original concept providing strength for its self-negation.


PIZZAMAN

Trad climber
Van Nuys, Ca.
Jun 28, 2018 - 04:32pm PT
Dingus Milktoast has expressed some very true opinions, I concur.
Messages 3141 - 3160 of total 3990 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta