Janus v. AFSCME

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
WildCat
Posts: 13694
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:53 am
Location: The 33rd Ward, Chicago
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 311 times

Re: Janus v. AFSCME

Post by WildCat » Fri Jun 29, 2018 3:00 am

RCC: Act II wrote:Sure they can. Can someone hired to help promote a government program instead use their position to remain silent about it or criticize it and expect constitutional protection?
Janus wasn't hired to promote wages, salaries, benefits, working conditions, and responsibilities of government employees. And I'm unaware of any government position that has that as a job responsibility.
Last edited by WildCat on Fri Jun 29, 2018 3:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Do you have questions about God?

you sniveling little right-wing nutter - jj

User avatar
RCC: Act II
Posts: 820
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Janus v. AFSCME

Post by RCC: Act II » Fri Jun 29, 2018 3:00 am

WildCat wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote:
Grammatron wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote: There aren't. I'm not sure what you are getting at.
Negotiating one's wages and benefits.
Still a management issue. Does a salary scale totally dependent on objective criteria also violate the right to free speech then? It also prevents you from negotiating.
Is the salary scale of government employees a public policy issue?
Obviously.

User avatar
WildCat
Posts: 13694
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:53 am
Location: The 33rd Ward, Chicago
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 311 times

Re: Janus v. AFSCME

Post by WildCat » Fri Jun 29, 2018 3:02 am

RCC: Act II wrote:
WildCat wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote:
Grammatron wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote: There aren't. I'm not sure what you are getting at.
Negotiating one's wages and benefits.
Still a management issue. Does a salary scale totally dependent on objective criteria also violate the right to free speech then? It also prevents you from negotiating.
Is the salary scale of government employees a public policy issue?
Obviously.
Then obviously forcing an employee to pay a union to advocate such public policy violates their 1st Amendment rights.
Do you have questions about God?

you sniveling little right-wing nutter - jj

User avatar
RCC: Act II
Posts: 820
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Janus v. AFSCME

Post by RCC: Act II » Fri Jun 29, 2018 3:05 am

WildCat wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote:Sure they can. Can someone hired to help promote a government program instead use their position to remain silent about it or criticize it and expect constitutional protection?
Janus wasn't hired to promote wages, salaries, working conditions, and responsibilities of government employees. And I'm unaware of any government position that has that as a job responsibility.
So my broad oversimplified point criticizing the opinion led to hypothetical theoretical ideas which do not fit in perfectly with the specific facts of the case.

Good to know.

User avatar
WildCat
Posts: 13694
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:53 am
Location: The 33rd Ward, Chicago
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 311 times

Re: Janus v. AFSCME

Post by WildCat » Fri Jun 29, 2018 3:09 am

RCC: Act II wrote:
WildCat wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote:Sure they can. Can someone hired to help promote a government program instead use their position to remain silent about it or criticize it and expect constitutional protection?
Janus wasn't hired to promote wages, salaries, working conditions, and responsibilities of government employees. And I'm unaware of any government position that has that as a job responsibility.
So my broad oversimplified point criticizing the opinion led to hypothetical theoretical ideas which do not fit in perfectly with the specific facts of the case.

Good to know.
This case wasn't about a hypothetical, Janus is a real person.
Do you have questions about God?

you sniveling little right-wing nutter - jj

User avatar
RCC: Act II
Posts: 820
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Janus v. AFSCME

Post by RCC: Act II » Fri Jun 29, 2018 3:13 am

WildCat wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote:
WildCat wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote:
Grammatron wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote: There aren't. I'm not sure what you are getting at.
Negotiating one's wages and benefits.
Still a management issue. Does a salary scale totally dependent on objective criteria also violate the right to free speech then? It also prevents you from negotiating.
Is the salary scale of government employees a public policy issue?
Obviously.
Then obviously forcing an employee to pay a union to advocate such public policy violates their 1st Amendment rights.
Need to show work as to how congress not abridging free speech comes into it.

What is served in the capitol cafeteria and at what prices was also to some extent a public policy issue. Bringing the first amendment into arguing that i should be able to negotiate what I had to pay for a grilled cheese seems a bit much for me...

User avatar
RCC: Act II
Posts: 820
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Janus v. AFSCME

Post by RCC: Act II » Fri Jun 29, 2018 3:21 am

WildCat wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote:
WildCat wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote:Sure they can. Can someone hired to help promote a government program instead use their position to remain silent about it or criticize it and expect constitutional protection?
Janus wasn't hired to promote wages, salaries, working conditions, and responsibilities of government employees. And I'm unaware of any government position that has that as a job responsibility.
So my broad oversimplified point criticizing the opinion led to hypothetical theoretical ideas which do not fit in perfectly with the specific facts of the case.

Good to know.
This case wasn't about a hypothetical, Janus is a real person.
Also good to know.

However, the discussion being had was about a hypothetical drawn on top of an oversimplification because I don't think it makes much sense to delve into the exact details of why I think the majority opinion is an unwise adjustment to first amendment jurisprudence because I don't much see the point and that sounds exhausting.

Still, yes, you can be asked to give up the free exercise of a constitutional right in exchange for a job, including one that ultimately is with the government. If this isn't beyond obvious, there really is no reason to go further.

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 33328
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1684 times

Re: Janus v. AFSCME

Post by Grammatron » Fri Jun 29, 2018 3:27 am

RCC: Act II wrote:
Grammatron wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote: There aren't. I'm not sure what you are getting at.
Negotiating one's wages and benefits.
Still a management issue. Does a salary scale totally dependent on objective criteria also violate the right to free speech then? It also prevents you from negotiating.
Not if that management is US government.

User avatar
RCC: Act II
Posts: 820
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Janus v. AFSCME

Post by RCC: Act II » Fri Jun 29, 2018 3:49 am

Grammatron wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote:
Grammatron wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote: There aren't. I'm not sure what you are getting at.
Negotiating one's wages and benefits.
Still a management issue. Does a salary scale totally dependent on objective criteria also violate the right to free speech then? It also prevents you from negotiating.
Not if that management is US government.
Third Base!!

We are so far upstream on this now that I'm not even sure what the hell I'm talking about anymore. Probably best to let it go. A poor job by me in constructing my oversimplification/hypothetical. I'll try to do better next time.

User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 67088
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom
Has thanked: 3318 times
Been thanked: 2096 times

Re: Janus v. AFSCME

Post by Doctor X » Fri Jun 29, 2018 7:59 am

Grammatron wrote:Not if that management is US government.
You can always leave and get another job with another US government if you do not like it. . . .

--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out."--Don
DocX: FTW.--sparks
"Doctor X wins again."--Pyrrho
"Never sorry to make a racist Fucktard cry."--His Humble MagNIfIcence
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone."--clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far."--Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.
Shit. That's going to end up in your sig."--Pyrrho
"Try a twelve step program and accept Doctor X as your High Power."--asthmatic camel
"just like Doc X said." --gnome

WS CHAMPIONS X3!!! NBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup! SB CHAMPIONS X5!!!!!
2

User avatar
WildCat
Posts: 13694
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:53 am
Location: The 33rd Ward, Chicago
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 311 times

Re: Janus v. AFSCME

Post by WildCat » Fri Jun 29, 2018 11:52 am

RCC: Act II wrote:Need to show work as to how congress not abridging free speech comes into it.
Coerced speech is an abridgement of free speech. You're not even trying any more.
Do you have questions about God?

you sniveling little right-wing nutter - jj

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 70318
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 3037 times
Been thanked: 1135 times

Re: Janus v. AFSCME

Post by Abdul Alhazred » Fri Jun 29, 2018 12:42 pm

It seems to me paying union dues isn't really "speech" (coerced or not).

That said, as noted I have no problem with "agency shop" not being legal any more.

It is only a problem to ambitious union bosses, not rank and file members.
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
RCC: Act II
Posts: 820
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Janus v. AFSCME

Post by RCC: Act II » Fri Jun 29, 2018 1:50 pm

WildCat wrote:
RCC: Act II wrote:Need to show work as to how congress not abridging free speech comes into it.
Coerced speech is an abridgement of free speech. You're not even trying any more.
Given the very first point was that it wasn't coerced seeing that employment is voluntary, then no.

I seem to have stumbled into a world where the only employer is the government.

User avatar
RCC: Act II
Posts: 820
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Janus v. AFSCME

Post by RCC: Act II » Fri Jun 29, 2018 2:05 pm

Abdul Alhazred wrote:It seems to me paying union dues isn't really "speech" (coerced or not).

That said, as noted I have no problem with "agency shop" not being legal any more.

It is only a problem to ambitious union bosses, not rank and file members.
Pretty much this.

The majority stretches the concept of what is protected speech in a way that will cause a lot of problems going forward were this reasoning be fairly applied in other cases. That's the real problem.

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 70318
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 3037 times
Been thanked: 1135 times

Re: Janus v. AFSCME

Post by Abdul Alhazred » Fri Jun 29, 2018 2:24 pm

Interestingly enough, "talking union" is an explicit exception to the usual Hatch Act prohibition on politicking at work.

The Hatch Act is seriously enforced and when it comes to (for example) the union endorsing candidates, they mail us the information at home not work.

But encouraging someone to join the union is OK at work.
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
WildCat
Posts: 13694
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:53 am
Location: The 33rd Ward, Chicago
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 311 times

Re: Janus v. AFSCME

Post by WildCat » Fri Jun 29, 2018 9:37 pm

Abdul Alhazred wrote:It seems to me paying union dues isn't really "speech" (coerced or not).
Paying for speech is speech. Those union dues go towards speech advocating public policies, which is political speech. Government cannot coerce political speech or make it a condition of employment.
Do you have questions about God?

you sniveling little right-wing nutter - jj

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 70318
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 3037 times
Been thanked: 1135 times

Re: Janus v. AFSCME

Post by Abdul Alhazred » Fri Jun 29, 2018 9:47 pm

It's not paying for speech.

It's paying for membership in an organization.

Lobbying is only a small part of what they do.

Note I do not have any problem with the decision as such, just that the reasoning is a little off.
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
WildCat
Posts: 13694
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:53 am
Location: The 33rd Ward, Chicago
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 311 times

Re: Janus v. AFSCME

Post by WildCat » Sat Jun 30, 2018 12:40 am

Abdul Alhazred wrote:It's not paying for speech.

It's paying for membership in an organization.

Lobbying is only a small part of what they do.

Note I do not have any problem with the decision as such, just that the reasoning is a little off.
The sole purpose of that organization is to use speech to influence public policy.

That is forced speech, not free speech. And it's political speech, the most protected form of speech.

If you don't see that you are an enemy of freedom.
Do you have questions about God?

you sniveling little right-wing nutter - jj

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 70318
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 3037 times
Been thanked: 1135 times

Re: Janus v. AFSCME

Post by Abdul Alhazred » Sat Jun 30, 2018 4:14 am

WildCat wrote: The sole purpose of that organization is to use speech to influence public policy.
Flat out not true.

No point in continuing the discussion.
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
WildCat
Posts: 13694
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:53 am
Location: The 33rd Ward, Chicago
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 311 times

Re: Janus v. AFSCME

Post by WildCat » Sat Jun 30, 2018 11:46 am

Abdul Alhazred wrote:
WildCat wrote: The sole purpose of that organization is to use speech to influence public policy.
Flat out not true.

No point in continuing the discussion.
Name one single activity public sector unions engage in that isn't political. Can you do that?
Do you have questions about God?

you sniveling little right-wing nutter - jj