Plutocrats have been trying to strangle unions since they began. They now have their best shot with the Janus case, which the Supreme Court is deciding now. The addition of far-right Justice Neil Gorsuch may provide the decisive vote to gut the unions by allowing people like Janus to withhold dues even as they collect the benefits won by Gorsuch.
Arthur Goldstein explains here why unions matter. Although he often criticizes his own union, he recognizes its importance to him and other working people.
Goldstein writes:
“The Supreme Court of the United States will shortly rule on the Janus v. AFSCME case. Janus contends that any and all union activity is inherently political, that no one should have to contribute anything to union activity, and that we should therefore become a “right to work” nation. That’s an interesting concept.
“My union, the United Federation of Teachers, has a political fund called COPE, and I contribute. I frequently disagree with UFT candidate endorsements and decisions, but I believe it’s important to empower our union. Not all of my friends believe that, but contributions to the political fund are strictly voluntary.
“Union does, however, help press for things like higher pay, better working conditions, and increased benefits. We teachers and our union are frequently criticized for those demands. I see our working conditions as student learning conditions. I see our profession as a pathway to the middle class. At least two of my former students are now my colleagues, something I’m proud of. I think it’s our responsibility to leave our profession better for future generations. Of course, others may disagree with what we strive for.
”It’s entirely possible there may be a class of teachers who want more work, less pay, and fewer benefits. A ruling for Janus, which would certainly weaken unions, could help achieve that. I’m UFT chapter leader at the largest school in Queens, and I represent Democrats, Republicans, and independents. I’ve never met a single member who wanted more work, less pay, and fewer benefits, but I don’t doubt they may exist. There are over 200,000 UFT members, and I don’t know them all.
“Nonetheless, I’m fascinated by the concept that Americans ought not to be compelled to contribute toward political activity that, at least in theory, benefits them. If SCOTUS rules for Janus (and smart money says it will), then this “freedom” ought not to be limited to union activity. For example, like many Americans, I don’t want to pay for Donald Trump’s golf outings. Why, then, is my money covering those trips?”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Bingo. Not on my dime for golf trips.
Drumph has cost US a lot of money. Drumph, his family, and his inner circle of bad people are raiding our treasury.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-trump-costs-20170508-story.html
Yvonne: Where is the outcry from the GOP on this issue? One more case of them not noticing that we are paying for Dump’s business activities and generous golf outings.
and the few of my acquaintances who are still staunchly Republican keep repeating that they are Republican Because They Are Fiscally Conservative
Ah, yes, the “fiscal conservatism” of Republicans, who are obsessed with frugality (for everyone except themselves, their funders and the military-industrial complex) when Democrats hold office, but always behave as if “deficits don’t matter” when they are in power.
Austerity for Thee, but not for Me.
“The billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch spent much of the eight years of the Obama presidency stoking fears about the budget deficit. Their political network aired an unending cascade of campaign advertisements against Democratic politicians, sponsored several national bus tours, and paid organizers in communities across the country to mobilize public demonstrations, all focused on the dangers of increasing the deficit.
One such ad even warned that government debt would lead to a Chinese takeover of America — which, for many voters, is a concern linked to debt. Another effort, also quietly bankrolled by the Koch network, used Justin Bieber memes to try to reach millennials about too much government borrowing.
Now that Republicans control all levers of power in Washington and the Koch brothers are poised to reap a windfall of billions of dollars through tax cuts, they have a new message: Don’t worry about the deficit.”
…”like many Americans, I don’t want to pay for Donald Trump’s golf outings. Why, then, is my money covering those trips?”
……
I don’t want to pay for Donald’s frequent golf outings nor do I want my tax money to go for the unending wars that kill and destroy. I want my money to help support Medicaid, Medicare, food banks, Social Security, education, green jobs, clean water for everyone, clean environment, libraries, infrastructure and any social groups that make America a safer, healthier more caring place to live. I also want my tax dollars to help those overseas who are starving and are desperate to survive.
Oh well. So much for dreaming. Guess its time for unions to be attacked. It is proven that states with Right to Work laws have lower salaries. More money for corporations and the wealthy is in the genes of the Repub conservatives. Screw us workers.
The Operating Engineers are already crystallizing Goldstein’s logical conclusions into action:
Please read and share.
“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.”
Yes and that is a strategy that must be tested . When Truman objected to Taft Hartley, he described it as a great infringement on free speech rights . Both the Loyalty oath and the secondary boycott provisions may have to be challenged .
But to do so will require a willingness to defy court orders and participate in civil disobedience. The NLRA was passed under the barrel of a gun .A threatened Nationwide steel strike, that was going to turn violent. One with the potential of derailing the recovery in 1935 . Protecting it may require the same .Sorry folks one sign I hardly saw any of in Foley Square, protesting Janus this Saturday was AFT\ UFT .
“Power concedes nothing without a demand , it never has and it never will ” F.D.
Do we have the will to place the demand?
Edit Loyalty oath was knocked down by a previous supreme court.
This is an issue about the sanctity of contracts, which so-called “conservatives” are adamant about when it’s a contract between two corporations — but they get all hypocritical and double-standard about it when it’s a contract between a corporation and a labor organization.
Contracts between companies have all sorts of exclusive-provider clauses saying that you can’t provide Product P or Service S to Company X except by virtue of your job with Company Y. The law of contracts does not give a tinker’s damn what you think about the political activity of Company X or Company Y.
There is no Right To Sell Billy Bob’s Buffalo Burgers™ unless you have a franchise from Billy Bob, Inc. to do so. There is no Right To Work for Company C if Company C has signed a contract with Union U that makes Union U an exclusive provider of the relevant labor to Company C.
Not on topic, but interesting. Here is the latest report of what (public) school teachers earn by state. (I do not necessarily agree nor endorse this information, I post it here for informational purposes only). see
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/careersandeducation/heres-how-much-teachers-earn-in-every-state/ss-BBDrDAi?ocid=ientp
Read about the case on the scotusblog website. Justice Elena Kagan’s argument that if they overturn Abood, they might as well overturn Marbury v Madison as well, was powerful, in my humble opinion. The only justice who didn’t tip his or her hat is Gorsuch: “During his closing remarks, Frederick – who sometimes seemed to address Gorsuch directly – warned of an “untold specter of labor unrest throughout the country” if Janus prevails. Seems to me that between now and the ruling in June, a taste of that labor unrest ought to be on Gorsuch’s lips with breakfast every morning when he, I assume, reads the newspaper.
As I stated above . Do we have the will to do so .
I personally stand ready to fight. Regarding the question of whether “we” have the will, I sometimes find it necessary to pray.
Also, seems to me the Koch brothers want to eliminate taxes as well as union dues. They want no one paying for any collectivity, not collective bargaining, not golf trips, not Social Security or Medicare, not anything.
It is certainly no hoax that the Janus case is anti-union but the premise of the case is a hoax. It’s not about freedom, it’s about destroying the union by built-in scabs such as Janus. No need to ship in scabs when you have people like Janus already on the job. Gorsuch was put on the SCOTUS to protect and and bolster the libertarian right wing agenda which is rabidly anti-union. Thanks to Clinton and Obama we have Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor on the court but sadly 4 is not enough. Libertarians claim to be for freedom but somehow they don’t want the freedom of workers to form unions. Libertarians are hypocritical fakes and phonies, they make me vomit. Guns galore? No problem for most of the right wing ghouls.
They’ll try to get rid of private sector unions, too, eventually. After that they’ll go after any federal and state worker protections.
Then you’ll see rock bottom wages and horrendous working conditions, which is what led to labor unions in the first place.
Labor unions didn’t just appear magically amid groups of smiling, happy workers. They were a response to abuses.
How does this guy Janus walk around without someone looking this guy in the eye and saying “who is paying you”. No doubt this guy janus is being paid to be the face of this evil, hate filled supreme court case brought to us by the devils cousins, the Koch Bros.
People we are living in a hate filled country with human beings trying to destroy the lives of other human beings. Humanity has taken a turned into the abyss and its really amazing that some people want to destroy the lives of others for really no good reason other than the love of money.
Why I have mixed emotions about the Janus case:
(I am a UFT retiree and contribute to COPE.)
UFT is not responsive to its members.
UFT leadership is a “club” whose survival is guaranteed.
UFT agreed to end seniority transfer rights and the establishment of the ATR pool.
UFT agreed to decentralizing the budget from the DOE to individual schools resulting in pressure on the school principals to replace veteran teachers with lower cost inexperienced teachers.
Creation of the ATR pool provided an avenue of attack of veteran teachers by Bloomberg/Klein as unwanted failures.
ATR teachers do not have the same level of protection as appointed teachers despite paying the same dues.
Michael Mulgrew said he would “punch in the face” anyone who opposed the Common Core standards. When the Common Core standards lost support he claimed victory! Completely duplicitous.
During my last attendance at a general UFT meeting of active teachers (2009) I recall two veteran teachers with 32 & 37 years experience speaking up about getting their first “U” ratings. They both stated that the UFT was no help, they had to hire their own lawyers and ultimately won in court. When they asked Mulgrew why the union was no help Mulgrew was completely silent. Incredible.
I recall an event where Diane Ravitch, Lily Eskelsen, and Randi Weingarten shared a stage about public education. When asked about opting out of standardized testing Eskelsen replied with an absurd comment that not taking the tests will not end the tests. Randi Weingarten replied with a revealing comment that students should be allowed to opt out AND opt in. There was no such thing as opting in. Students were automatically scheduled for the tests with administrators making it as difficult as possible to opt out. I saw this as code for the billionaire-boys-club that the union leaders would do their bidding.
Both the NEA & UFT/AFT have accepted millions from Bill Gates to support the Common Core standards.
Randi Weingarton served on an Eli Broad Foundation for education issues. Stunning.
When is the last time a UFT president served out their final term until completion? Answer: Never! They retired early, appointed a favorite as interim acting several months before elections thereby virtually ensuring the interim’s victory from “incumbency”.
Time for a change. I believe that membership/dues should be voluntary. If teachers, or someone in any union job, sees the union as valuable I believe the vast majority would pay their dues to belong to the union. A union’s survival should not be guaranteed but should be earned. I believe that union & non union members should have the same pay and benefits but unions should not be required to defend non members.
“It is essential that here should be organizations of labor. This is an era of organization. Capital organizes and therefore labor must organize. My appeal for organized labor is two-fold; to the outsider and the capitalist I make my appeal to treat the laborer fairly, to recognize the fact that he must organize that there must be such organization, that the laboring man must organize for his own protection, and that it is the duty of the rest of us to help him and not hinder him in organizing. That is one-half appeal that I make.”
— President Theodore Roosevelt (Teddy Roosevelt) From a speech Teddy Roosevelt gave in 1912
http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-famous-populist-speech-teddy-roosevelt-gave-right-after-getting-shot-2011-10
Nice find, Lloyd. So true.
Free speech means exactly that. Freedom of speech, means that no one should be compelled to pay for speech, that the person does not agree with. The court ruled 4-4 in the Friedrichs case. With Neil Gorsuch on the bench, the court will rule in the direction of freedom, and not for coerced speech.
Labor unions are already planning on the loss of funds, that will result from a ruling against coercive speech.
Freedom is going to win.
What you call “freedom” wins, but millions of hard working people will lose. Real people, not abstractions.
It isn’t over until it’s over. The court may rule for the defendant. Labor unions will still go on. The unions may decide to solicit funds from individuals, to make up for the loss. The unions will not lose their ability to lobby politicians.
Charles, you love crushing working people. Sad.
That is not true. My wife belonged to the Machinists union, when we lived in Kentucky. I believe in unions. and in the right of workers to organize collectively for bargaining purposes. As long the organizing is voluntary.
Charles, you celebrate harm to unions and to workers. You are a cruel and cold hearted bot.
I admit, that if the Court rules in favor of the worker, who brought the lawsuit against the union, I will cheer. I support the right of the worker, to decline to be forced to contribute to political speech, that he/she does not agree with. The first amendment works both ways.
This is going to be interesting.
You support the right of the corporations to strip workers of fair pay, pensions, and health care. You are a cold, cruel, heartless man.
Charles, study what life was like before labor unions. My uncle died in his 90s more than a decade ago. He was old enough to remember what it was like.
Before unions, there was no job security, no benefits, no unemployment, no nothing, and the pay was horrible. In 1900, the poverty level in the U.S. was 40 percent.
My uncle told me a story of when he was a young man in his teens. The biggest employer in his small Midwest town was the railroad and every morning every man without a regular job, a business or a farm made the trek to the rail yard where workers were hired on a daily basis.
The crowd of poor, workers without jobs gathered by an empty freight car on a siding. Eventually, the manager that worked for the railroad arrived and climbed up into that freight car. He counted out a token for each job for that day and tossed it into the crowd where the men had to compete to catch and keep one of those chips that meant they had a job for the day to load and unload freight cars. The pay was 0.25 cents a day with no health insurance. If you were injured on the job, you received no medical care from the railroad and you were replaced and sent home to recover or die without any pay.
That is a snapshot of the U.S. around the birth of the labor union movement when the poverty level was 40 percent.
Lloyd, it is kind of you to try toreason with Charles. He never listens.
Thank you. I felt like someone had to speak out against his twisted, wrong headedness.
Charles, are you aware of the adverse affects of Right to Work laws? Is it perfectly okay to screw workers so that corporations can have more profits? This comes from the Economic Policy Institute:
“At their core, RTW laws seek to hamstring unions’ ability to help employees bargain with their employers for better wages, benefits, and working conditions. Given that unionization raises wages both for individual union members as well as for nonunion workers in unionized sectors, it is not surprising that research shows that both union and nonunion workers in RTW states have lower wages and fewer benefits, on average, than comparable workers in other states.
Indeed, in a 2011 EPI paper, Elise Gould and Heidi Shierholz estimate that wages in RTW states are 3.2 percent lower on average than wages in non-RTW states, even after controlling for a full set of worker characteristics and state labor market conditions. Gould and Shierholz (2011) also find that workers in RTW states are less likely to have employer-sponsored health insurance and pension coverage.”
Charles:
In On Liberty, John S. Mill suggested that our freedom extends until it harms someone else. Thus governments exist to referee between interests, and one of those decisions was the governmental decision to settle differences between labor and industry peaceably. This is the history of the closed shop and of unions. The farther we get from unions, the closer we come to the violent confrontation between people who control money and people who try to get it with their labor. If labor negotiations do not work, what will keep people from using their second amendment rights to bear arms. I do not want to live in that country.
It’s not coerced speech. It’s collective bargaining.
Diane,
Here’s my example of why we need unions. At my former factory job, it was discovered that a coworker was selling drugs. To investigate, many workers were interrogated.m, including myself. I worked on the same line as this person and sometimes they were at the next station in line. Therefore it was assumed I had intimate conversations with this person. I was sat down in front of a group of people: company lawyers, HR persons, etc. where they grilled me with questions. But because I had a Union, I was protected from being fired without cause. My union rep acted as my attorney in that situation. They could of asked questions that got me in trouble where I would immediately lose my job, not receive unemployment benefits, then be responsible to still have to defend myself against anything they said. And, they could easily drop any inquiry after firing me. But I would still have that incident on my work record.
The union is there to protect workers from losing their jobs without cause. Because it is you versus the company, and the company has all the resources to do whatever they want to do. The union levels that playing field.
Michael is telling some hard truths above but in the bigger picture, I agree with Arthur. He has much to say about unions too but is actively trying to do something about it from within. That’s what we all should do, and maybe they would run better. It’s hard and takes a long time, but having LESS people in the union is the exact intention of the bad guys.
To Michael, yes the current leadership has a track record of letting all this bad stuff happen. No question there are issues at the top. Much unreported widely. On Janus, Mulgrew already was resigned last June that Janus was a done deal.
The time to discuss the current leadership is during union elections. Don’t make Janus a referendum on the tiny number at the top, the unions represent millions upon millions and need membership to grow, not fall.
We should not wipe out compulsory dues, we should fix the undemocratic structure of the union – which could happen quickly if more than 25% would simply vote in the elections.
I listened to Sam Seder discuss the technical arguments of Janus with a law professor for an hour. The upcoming verdict will have nothing to do with Constitutional law or precedent, or “promoting the general welfare” – the outcome was determined when Trump won, because this was always a “made to order” case, requested by Scalia, to put in front of him.
The plaintiffs were groomed and coached to serve the 1% who want to suppress wages and win even more elections. Let’s not let them.
Please remember the union is 99.9% us, its locals in so many places, its workers, retirees. Use it for what it was intended – as a bulwark against oligarchs.
I say preserve the unions – look to Chicago for what fighting back means like – and run for something. I say draft Arthur for AFT President!
For unions to be effective the membership must wilingly support belonging to them and pay the dues. The greatest gains by unions occurred from what I can see before the establishment of agency fees. Once the state/city guarantee the dues the leadership’s obligation shifts from the membership to the guarantor of dues.
I support two changes, one of which may happen from the Janus case:
1. Membership & dues become voluntary.
2. A union would no longer be required to defend non members.
That number 2 is very interesting, but not accurate. I’m chapter leader of a very large school, and there’s nothing about this case that says we no longer represent non-members. In so-called right to work states, shirkers get all the benefits of union without paying. While I agree, and while I have written quite extensively about issues with leadership, there are also some great people there I’ve gotten to know. I work to represent teachers, as do many of us.
I’m not sure what I’ll do when faced with the prospect of representing non-members, but I’ve been giving it some pretty serious thought.
Arthur Goldstein: Not representing non members is what I suggest should occur in the event unions lose the Janus case. I understand that this issue is not part of the court case. Let dues/membership be voluntary and at the same time allow unions the right not to defend a non member. This would encourage workers to be more likely to join in my opinion. Under current regulations unions must defend non members, that is wrong in my opinion.
I know that sounds at first like a fair proposal, but you have to realize what would happen if a union allows two classes of workers to be created. Management then has a tool for playing the classes off each other. You would find that non-members actually get treated better rather than worse, as a way of enticing union members to leave, that is, of course, until the union is broken.
I don’t doubt that “whipsawing” exists. But, if a union could win significant benefits for its members it seems to me people would want to join. Sick days, overtime, predictable working hours, health benefits, etc. If workers are pitted against each other to the point of extreme pressure and exhaustion that might also encourage them to join a union.
Workers who join a union would be more supportive than workers who are forced to join or pay dues without joining. (Agency Fees)
I take it you haven’t seen the comparison between union pay and benefits and non-union pay without benefits for similar jobs.
Why do so many people think poorly of labor unions? The answer is that the union hating CEOs and billionaires have been bashing them for decades and union haters are not going to tell you the fact-based truth.
“Differences between union and nonunion compensation, 2001 – 2011
“Recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) show that, on average, union workers receive larger wage increases than those of non-union workers and generally earn higher wages and have greater access to most of the common employer-sponsored benefits as well.”
Click to access art2full.pdf
I am a union member (UFT). I support unions. My experience in the UFT has resulted in my expressing these opinions. My thoughts are how to make unions more effective, not less. An entity with a guarantee of survival will never be effective in my opinion. The unions leaders will be obligated to the guarantors of its survival as I perceive the UFT is. This may be a poor analogy but I recall the Yugo automobile manfactured in the Soviet Union. Designed around the 1930’s and unchanged until the demise of the Soviet Union. The car manufacturer’s survival was guaranteed.
I was a member of NEA-CTA-ARE for most of thirty years and my experience being a member of a teachers’ union is not the same as yours with UFT. My union fought to protect its members and fought to make sure we earned our fair share of the revenues from the state and it was a never-ending battle with autocratic, micromanaging district administrators.
You bring up the demise of Yugo in the USSR, and I think that fits the bogus claims that labor unions caused the decline of America’s auto industry.
The so-called decline of the American auto industry was competition with automakers in Japan and Germany as those countries rebuilt their industries after World War II.
During that rebuilding time, the US auto industry was manufacturing most of the cars the world used and then they weren’t once Germany and Japan rebuilt. In addition, it was GM that invented planned obsolescence to generate more sales while Japan went the other direction and built cars that were more dependable, and Japan is still building cars that are more dependable even in the U.S. where they have built plants.
I don’t really want to argue about the car makers. My only point was that a guarantee of survival resulted in zero improvement after about 50 years of production and the maker was certainly not responsive to the consumer. I don’t know if you read my post “Why I have Mixed Emotions About The Janus Case”. I go into a lot of detail why I feel the way I do.
It’s a variation on the very old tactic of “whipsawing”. See the note below.
See “Whipsawing” —
“Whipsawing is a term for the corporate tactic of pitting employees at one plant against workers at another plant of the same company. Workers who produce similar vehicles or components find themselves in competition to get new work into their plant. When one group of workers agrees, under intense pressure, to certain concessions, the second group will often agree to give up even more to hold on to their jobs. It’s a vicious downward spiral, and only the bosses come out on top.”
• http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/citations/whipsawing_1/