The Supreme Court’s Janus decision said that people who don’t want to pay dues to a union are not required to do so. The assumption is that non-members can get the benefits without paying any dues.
But when a union in Owensboro, Kentucky, asked if it could remain a member without paying dues, the Chamber of Commerce said no. No freeloaders!
Fred Klonsky has the letter here.
I recently got a comment on the blog from someone who said, “why should I have to pay union dues to teach?” I told him he was right. He should not be required to pay union dues. He should also not expect to get the pay raises negotiated by the unions or the health and pension benefits. No reason for him to pay dues.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I was geographically and generationally out of the loop for union membership until I taught in public universities were the formation of new unions was being led by women who were systematically underpaid for assignments comparable to men. That finally changed. I am a firm supporter of collective bargaining, but the quality of the union experience depends on really paying attention to issues and being heard, not just paying dues.
LikeLike
Great explanation and it goes for everything else in life too. Ignorance helped get us ignorant Trump, a good example for your statement.
LikeLike
I strongly support the principle of collective bargaining, and voluntary membership in labor unions. But your characterization of the thrust of the Janus decision, misses the mark. see
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-1466
The Supreme Court held: Q In a 5-4 vote, the Court reversed and remanded, holding that the State of Illinois’ extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public-sector employees violated the First Amendment, meaning that Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Education, which held otherwise, was overruled. END Q
The decision addressed “agency fees”, which are not “dues”. Compelling non-consenting individuals to pay for speech, is a violation of the first amendment. It does not matter if the speech benefits the individual or not.
LikeLike
As a shareholder in numerous companies due to an IRA and other mutual funds, I then object Citizens United. Why should corporations have the right to donate to political candidates or organizations, like ALEC, that I don’t endorse? How is this not a violation of my free speech rights?
LikeLike
I do not get the parallel. If you object to the political activities of corporations with which you choose to own stock, you are free to divest yourself of the stock.
During the campaign to end apartheid in South Africa, many US corporations withdrew their operations, and/or divested from holdings in South Africa.
If you find the activities of any corporation to be distasteful, you are free to divest yourself and boycott the offending company.
When you invest in a corporation, you voluntarily choose to sign over your limited power of attorney, for the corporation to act in your interest. When you are dissatisfied, sell out!
LikeLike
So it follows that if you don’t want to work at a unionized school, you could choose a non-union alternative like say charter or private. Teachers have other options.
And, yes, you get the parallel. It’s impossible to do IRA or mutual investing while disconnecting from all corporations who engage in disagreeable politics. My investment money could be used to support candidates I don’t care for. Free speech violation.
LikeLike
Q So it follows that if you don’t want to work at a unionized school, you could choose a non-union alternative like say charter or private. Teachers have other options. END Q
I agree. If a teacher does not wish to work for a unionized school system, then he/she is free to resign and seek alternate employment. In a right-to-work state, the teacher is free to join or not join the union.
I think it is the mother of all ironies. Teachers have other options. Families/students who are in states that do not have vouchers/ESAs are trapped.
LikeLike
Charles,
No student is “trapped in a failing public school.”
If you read this blog, you know that every voucher/ESA Study shows that students who leave public schools with a voucher go to a WORSE school than the public school.
Public schools are superior to most private and religious schools, except for those whose tuition is far greater than any state voucher.
The reason private schools have higher test scores is because their students are rich and advantaged, from affluent families with educated parents.
Your assignment: read the last sentence 100 times daily for one week.
LikeLike
I do not get your comment: Q No student is “trapped in a failing public school.” END Q
see this:
https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/11/29/black-kids-get-trapped-failing-schools/
http://reason.com/archives/2014/04/15/progressives-fight-to-keep-poor-kids-tra
Why do you claim that there are no students trapped in failing schools?
LikeLike
There are no “failing schools.”
That is a line used to describe schools where children are impoverished and needy. They live in a failing society.
Only fools, privatizers, charlatans, and liars label a school in a poor community “failing.”
LikeLike
Why should I have to pay taxes to live in this country?
LikeLike
Several celebrities stated that if Trump were elected, that they would leave the country. A sheriff in Alabama started a fund-raiser to buy them all bus tickets to Mexico. None of the celebrities took him up on the offer.
LikeLike
You don’t mind that the president is a traitor.
Christopher Wray, the man he appointed to lead the FBI, said yesterday that Putin ordered the hacking of our election.
LikeLike
I still remember the Watergate scandal. If the president has broken the law, then he should be brought to justice. That is why the constitution has an impeachment provision.
I have no first-hand information, but there is every possibility that there was some foreign intrusion, in the previous election. The allegation should be investigated thoroughly.
Please do not presume to tell me what I “mind”.
LikeLike
What’s this “if” stuff???? We all watched Trump on TV on Monday agree with a major enemy instead of our own intelligence agencies. Sure sounds like he broke the law to me.
LikeLike
Now he is inviting Putin to DC in the fall because Helsinki was such a success!
LikeLike
A sheriff in Alabama publicly wanted Americans to disappear to Mexico because he disagreed with them. That summed up the rightwing attitude perfectly: “Be just like me or disappear behind a fence or a wall.” Intolerance.
LikeLike
I do not understand the meaning of your question. The US Constitution delegates to the federal government, the power to levy and collect taxes. See
https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag26_user.html
There are many people (illegal aliens) who choose to live here illegally, and pay US taxes. This is voluntary taxation without representation.
If you feel that you are being taxed unfairly, or that your tax burden is too high, you should complain to your elected representatives.
LikeLike
The free loaders should pay dues or agency fees because they voluntarily of their own free will opted to work at a unionized school. There are any number of non union schools that they could have taught at. If we lived in a sane country, these people would be paying their union dues because they reap all the benefits of a union: better pay, benefits, pensions and backing in case they want to file a grievance for unjust treatment by some principal, not to mention being falsely accused by some crazed parent. We live in a country dominated by wealthy right wingers/libertarians who are opposed to democracy, unions and anything that helps the masses. This far right wing hatefulness is phasing into outright fascism as evidenced by people like Steve King, Louie Gohmert, Paul Gosar, Trump, etc., it’s a long list.
LikeLike
This is not about free speech or free anything, this is about rabid, frothing at the mouth anti-unionism by the wealthy libertarians and other assorted plutocrats. Try forming a union at Walmart or Amazon in the USA; you will be escorted to the nearest exit in one shape, form or other. How’s that for free speech!
LikeLike
From think progress, 6-9-11: In Brazil, Argentina, China, the United Kingdom, and now South Africa, some Walmart employees are organized. In China, Walmart is required by law to recognize union membership, and in Mexico, 18 percent of its workers are organized. British labor leaders describe their dealings with Walmart as “honest,” and in Argentina, organized employees make as much as 40 percent more than employees at retailer’s major competitors. Walmart has a convenient response to why it lets workers organize in these countries, as the Washington Post reports:
“We have a local philosophy,” Wal-Mart International Chief Executive Doug McMillon recently told reporters. “It’s our intention to demonstrate that we are a great corporate citizen.”
In Brazil and Argentina, meanwhile, Walmart says it allows workers to unionize because “that’s what the associates want”:
“We recognize those rights,” said John Peter “J.P.” Suarez , senior vice president of international business development at Walmart. “In that market, that’s what the associates want, and that’s the prevailing practice.”
Apparently for Walmart, however, it matters not what workers want if those workers happen to be American. end quote
Now how about that, Walmart is unionized in some other countries but not the US!
LikeLike
Apple manufactures in China because it can pay workers $20 a day—or less. Tim Cook is BS. The NY Times wrote articles about the Foxconn facility in China where workers are on call 24/7. The building is surrounded by netting to prevent suicides.
LikeLike
The factories in China that manufacture Apple products are owned by a Taiwan-based contract manufacturer called Foxconn.
“The COMPANY: Foxconn, also known as Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., is the world’s largest contract maker of electronics, with factories across mainland China. It’s best known for making iPhones and other Apple devices but its long list of customers includes Sony Corp., Dell Inc. and BlackBerry Ltd.”
Last year (2017) the Chicago Tribune ran a piece on Foxconn’s plans to build a new plant in the U.S.
“AMERICAN EXPANSION: A new U.S. plant will bring Foxconn closer to its biggest market.”
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-what-is-Foxconn-20170727-story.html
Foxconn has factories in China, Brazil, Europe, India, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, the Middle East, South Korea, and plans to build a $10 billion plant in the US that they “promise” will provide 13,000 high paying jobs. President Trump, the serial liar in chief, was the mouth that announced this from the White House on July 25, 2017, so no telling what the real facts are.
As of October 4, 2017, Foxconn agreed to locate their plant at Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin,[69] and broke ground for the plant June 28, 2018. President Trump was in attendance to promote American manufacturing.[70][71]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn#International_operations
LikeLike
As for Amazon, owned by the richest man in the universe: Quote – As Amazon Prime Day goes into full swing, labor unions in Europe are protesting the e-commerce giant over poor working conditions at the company’s delivery centers.
On Monday, a German trade union said it would join a strike in Spain in a one-day protest starting tomorrow. It claims that many Amazon employees working at the fulfillment centers suffer from health problems and stress.
“The message is clear: while the online giant gets richer, it is saving money on the health of its workers,” said Stefanie Nutzberger, an official with the Verdi trade union in a statement.
In Spain, the country’s trade unions have been calling on Amazon workers to strike over the next three days. The unions had been attempting to negotiate better pay, but claim Amazon only offered a salary increase of 1.1 percent. [snip]
Amazon warehouse workers have also been talking to the press, and claim they’re under constant pressure to fulfill delivery orders. Reportedly, some UK-based workers have been trying to meet their orders by skipping bathroom breaks and instead urinating in bottles, according to one journalist.
In response to this week’s strikes, Amazon said it’s a fair and responsible employer. “We don’t recognize these allegations as an accurate portrayal of activities in our buildings,” the company said. “We encourage anyone to come see for themselves by taking a tour at one of our fulfillment centers.” from PC 7-6-18
US Amazon workers are not unionized and I don’t think they have ever had a wildcat strike? How sick is that, Bezos has the wealth of multiple czars and emperors but his workers don’t get proper bathroom breaks.
LikeLike
The Supreme Court determined that compelling individuals to pay “agency fees”, was a violation of their free speech rights. see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus_v._AFSCME
Here is an important point:
Q On June 27, 2018, the Court ruled in a 5–4 decision that the application of public sector union fees to non-members is a violation of First Amendment rights, ruling against the unions. Justice Alito wrote for the Court, joined by Justices Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Gorsuch. Alito wrote that with agency-shop agreements, “this arrangement violates the free speech rights of nonmembers by compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern”.[ END Q
LikeLike
That the Court ruled that agency fees were legal one day and then were a violation of free speech the next may make it the law, but it does’n’t mean it is true any more than the Court deciding through Plessy that legal segregation was constitutional and then 60 years later decided it wasn’t. The ruling was due to a pro-business bias of the current members of the court which will only get more vicious as Trump appoints more members to sit on it. They will roll back women’s rights, the rights of racial minorities and the rights of all working people. Dress the decision up in any outfit you like, Charles, but we know a duck when we see it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I do not get this comment. The Supreme Court has reversed previous decisions many times. So what? The decision in Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), reversed the ruling in Betts v. Brady (1942). The Supreme Court does not get it right in every case. The Court generally adheres to “stare decisis”, and does not reverse itself lightly.
Do you have any specific information, that the Court is planning to “roll back” women’s rights, minority rights, and working people’s rights?
I believe that the ruling in the Janus decision, was a boon to working people. They will now have the choice to contribute to labor unions, and/or join as they see fit. Their free speech rights have been restored, and they will not be compelled to pay for speech, even if it is beneficial to them.
A person should be able to sell their labor to an employer, without the advice or permission of a third party (like a union), and certainly working people should not be compelled to pay fees to a union, that they are not a member of.
LikeLike
Yes, Charles, I have specific information, spoken by candidate Trump during the campaign. He pledged to appoint only judges from the Federalist Society list and he pledged to reverse Roe v Wade.
LikeLike
Q and he [Trump] pledged to reverse Roe v Wade. END Q
I am more confused. My question was:
Q Do you have any specific information, that the Court is planning to “roll back” women’s rights, minority rights, and working people’s rights? END Q
I am interested in whether the court (itself) is planning to roll back the rights specified. I have seen no documentation, nor have any cases been considered for certiorari (consideration), on these topics.
How can the president reverse a Supreme Court decision?
In order for a previous decision to be reversed, a case must be filed, and then complete the appeals process, and then be granted certiorari by the Court.
The president is powerless to reverse Supreme Court decisions (unilaterally).
The Court ruled in Roe v. Wade, that the states could not restrict access to abortions in the first tri-mester (among other things). The result has been that states are restricted from enacting such restrictions. If there were to be a reversal, some states would do nothing, and some states would possibly move to restrict access to abortions.
LikeLike
Yes. Candidate Trump statements on Roe v Wade.
Trump appointments of people who hold these views.
I am not your Research asst
LikeLike
Fair enough. BTW- The question was directed at Fred Klonsky. Pres Trump has appointed, and will continue to appoint individuals to federal judgeships (at all levels) which purport to hold views similar to his own. On that we can rely!
I am cynical enough, not to hold politicians to keeping their campaign promises. Most of them do not keep their promises.
Nevertheless, the federal judiciary is independent. Pres Bush (1) appointed David Souter, believing him to be conservative, and Souter turned out to be more of a swing voter.
LikeLike
The rightwing mantra is “No more Souters!”
That’s why Trump chooses only from a list created by the far-right Federalist Society.
He doesn’t care about American Bar Association. Some of his appointees were rated “Unqualified.”
Only the Federalist Society.
LikeLike
There is a definite grass-roots movement underway to roll back reproductive rights. The group claims to have knocked on 1.2 million doors, and has a goal of 2 million doors.
As a person who supports reproductive rights, I think that supporters should pay close attention, and see about getting some doors knocked on, ourselves.
I believe that Roe v. Wade, was solid constitutional law, and I support the decision. I hope that the Court will practice stare decisis, and let the decision stand.
LikeLike
Charles,
You do not support reproductive rights. As usual, you pretend.
LikeLike
I am absolutely pro-choice. My current wife has had two(2) abortions (Previous marriage for her). My two sisters have both had abortions. I vote pro-choice. I have participated in pro-choice demonstrations.
I am conservative on most issues (national defense, etc). But I part company with conservatives, when it comes to reproductive freedom.
I am not pretending, and I never pretend.
LikeLike
And yet you question whether Trump’s justices will repeal Roe v Wade
He has said so many times during campaign
This is the biggest wish of his base
LikeLike
Not exactly. I believe that Pres Trump is going to appoint judges that are opposed to reproductive rights. On that you can rely. Judge Kavanaugh is a rock-ribbed Roman Catholic, and unquestionably opposed to reproductive rights. Stipulated.
What I am trying to see, is the mechanism for a reversal of Roe v. Wade. Is there a case, that could get certiorari? And will the court respect stare decisis, and the tradition of respecting precedent, and letting the decision stand.
Current/future supreme court justices, could be personally opposed to abortion, but still find that Roe is solid constitutional law.
There may well be a move to get a case before the Supremes in the next couple of years. Who knows?
LikeLike
The Chamber of Commerce in Owensboro, Kentucky should be taken to court using the same argument that the Alt-Right Deep State made in its Janus decision.
In fact, why not go after the federal and state governments using the same lack of logic that was applied in Janus and fight for our right not to pay taxes if we don’t want to.
LikeLike
I do not get our last comment. Do you think that a person has the right not to pay taxes? Is there a plan to sue the US government, to obtain the right not to pay taxes?
LikeLike
Yes.
LikeLike
The United States government has “limited sovereign immunity”, and normally is immune from suit. A private citizen, normally cannot sue the US government, unless the government agrees in advance to be sued.
Please tell the specifics: Do you personally think that a person has the right not to pay taxes? How can a person exercise that right? Can you cite a court case, articulating this right?
And again, is there a plan to get the US government to waive immunity, and agree to participate in a lawsuit, to obtain the right not to pay taxes?
LikeLike
Nice catch, Fred Klonsky!
LikeLike
Charles does not get your comment, but thanks.
LikeLike