too add to that.....unions like the NEA, OEA etc..... better lower their dues because they just lost about half their members.
posted by Spocktoo add to that.....unions like the NEA, OEA etc..... better lower their dues because they just lost about half their members.
The unions will be just fine if they cut their massive campaign contributions and just focus on their job, which is collective bargaining.
posted by gutThe unions will be just fine if they cut their massive campaign contributions and just focus on their job, which is collective bargaining.
Hugely agree with this. Paying for federal and state mediation while negotiating contracts is well worth the money. The OEA guys are very good at what they do
posted by gutThe unions will be just fine if they cut their massive campaign contributions and just focus on their job, which is collective bargaining.
My wife was in the NEA (forced) and the lead up to elections was extremely annoying. We'd essentially get a new campaign mailer for a democrat candidate every single day.
posted by Spockas a union member who in Ohio really has no rights for employment since the evaluation system for my job has changed and you can be let go for any reason,why pay dues for protective rights under any collective bargaining agreement? I will just take the $700 a year back in my paycheck.
In the long run the ruling IMHO could be a win for public sector unions and eventually all unions. Since public sector bargaining is inherently related to free expression per Janus it opens up the opportunity for the unions to argue that being required to bargain for the same benefits for non-union employees violates their 1st Amendment Rights. No bargaining for pensions for non-union employees will make joining the union pretty attractive whereas now you can get all those benefits benefits bargained-for on your behalf without having to pay.
posted by BoatShoesIn the long run the ruling IMHO could be a win for public sector unions and eventually all unions. Since public sector bargaining is inherently related to free expression per Janus it opens up the opportunity for the unions to argue that being required to bargain for the same benefits for non-union employees violates their 1st Amendment Rights. No bargaining for pensions for non-union employees will make joining the union pretty attractive whereas now you can get all those benefits benefits bargained-for on your behalf without having to pay.
With all of the pay gap stuff, you really think a company is going to pay union employees a different rate/ pension plan than non-union for the same skill/ experience? Seems to me like that would open them up to constant litigation. When they hire a new employee are they going to ask if he will be in the union to see what pay/ pension they can offer?
Instead of the typical one-size-fits-all BIG government style of employ, performance-based compensation should be the answer. If you work hard, do a great job, and have a good attitude, you would/should get paid more. Most people will fall in line; the rest can go elsewhere. The efficiencies gained would save taxpayers billions.
posted by iclfan2With all of the pay gap stuff, you really think a company is going to pay union employees a different rate/ pension plan than non-union for the same skill/ experience? Seems to me like that would open them up to constant litigation. When they hire a new employee are they going to ask if he will be in the union to see what pay/ pension they can offer?
No reason you couldn't have a job posting saying - A). If bargaining unit - X Pay and Pension - if non-bargaining - Y Pay and no Pension if the courts were to follow the Janus reasoning. They already as part of their labor agreements determine wither certain positions will be bargaining and non-bargaining - the Union could just decide to bargain to make this flexible based on whether or not a person will be in the union. As long as it was clearly not based on a protected class they could argue that they have a first amendment right not to bargain the same for a non-union member and non-union membership isn't a protected class.
Kennedy is retiring from SCOTUS.
posted by CenterBHSFanKennedy is retiring from SCOTUS.
No way in hell will the Ds in the Senate allow for a confirmation hearing or vote until after the Midterms. They will scream, the Rs held up the seat until after the election and now we should do the same.
I don't know if it is right or not, but shit....things are going to get really nasty now...
posted by ptown_trojans_1No way in hell will the Ds in the Senate allow for a confirmation hearing or vote until after the Midterms. They will scream, the Rs held up the seat until after the election and now we should do the same.
I don't know if it is right or not, but shit....things are going to get really nasty now...
How exactly are they going to stop it? It's also not quite the same argument as it's the POTUS who nominates, and POTUS is not on the ballot this election cycle.
Truthfully, both Roberts and Kennedy have been swing votes. All this will really do is leave Roberts as the only swing vote, one who leans right on business issues and left on many social issues.
posted by ptown_trojans_1No way in hell will the Ds in the Senate allow for a confirmation hearing or vote until after the Midterms. They will scream, the Rs held up the seat until after the election and now we should do the same.
I don't know if it is right or not, but shit....things are going to get really nasty now...
Yeahhhhh I definitely agree with you on this. Twitter will win the Academy Awards with all the drama we will see in the next few days!
posted by gutHow exactly are they going to stop it? It's also not quite the same argument as it's the POTUS who nominates, and POTUS is not on the ballot this election cycle.
Truthfully, both Roberts and Kennedy have been swing votes. All this will really do is leave Roberts as the only swing vote, one who leans right on business issues and left on many social issues.
Yeah, one could make the case that, like the Rs did, that the voters should determine who gets to pick the next justice and that the elections in November could do that. Say, it's a check on Trump to make sure he does not turn the Court too radical. It's the same argument the Rs made. I'm not sure its right, but I could easily see the argument being made.
Also, it depends on who Trump picks. If he goes with a moderate, it takes the steam out of the process. If he goes full Trump and goes full blown conservative that wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and the Gay Marriage stuff, look out....
posted by CenterBHSFanYeahhhhh I definitely agree with you on this. Twitter will win the Academy Awards with all the drama we will see in the next few days!
Days...try months.
posted by ptown_trojans_1No way in hell will the Ds in the Senate allow for a confirmation hearing or vote until after the Midterms. They will scream, the Rs held up the seat until after the election and now we should do the same.
Good. I hope they make complete asses of themselves. Can only hope Ginsberg has leave too. Twitter would be amazing.
I'd also like to say the Supreme court is garbage since they split politically 90% of the time. As seen by all 4 liberal justices dissenting on clear free speech violations.
posted by iclfan2Good. I hope they make complete asses of themselves. Can only hope Ginsberg has leave too. Twitter would be amazing.
I'd also like to say the Supreme court is garbage since they split politically 90% of the time. As seen by all 4 liberal justices dissenting on clear free speech violations.
In a perfect world, Kennedy is replaced by a moderate, and Ginsburg is replace by a moderate....hopefully both apolitical. A 3-3-3 court would be pretty good, ideally 2-5-2 (if politics has any place at all on the SCOTUS).
LOL, this is like Christmas for liberals. I wonder if they'll wheel Ginsburg out on the campaign trail.
I hope Trump delivers and appoints a Gorsuch clone.
posted by like_thatI hope Trump delivers and appoints a Gorsuch clone.
hah! You really do want to watch the world burn, eh?
posted by ptown_trojans_1
I don't know if it is right or not, but shit....things are going to get really nasty now...
You don't? Of course it isn't, and no, it wasn't right when the other side did it.
I think Trump plays politics with this seat. Puts up a extremely moderate judge and gets reelected by a landslide in a few years
posted by SpockI think Trump plays politics with this seat. Puts up a extremely moderate judge and gets reelected by a landslide in a few years
I don't know if his list has a moderate, but that's where the nomination is going to come from. It would be interesting, given the likelihood of keeping the Senate, if Repubs decided to table it. McConnell already said they intend to confirm in the fall.
Personally, I'm not sure Trump would care if he lost the House and/or Senate. He'd just stand up there and blame Congress for not doing anything, and use it as an excuse for more Executive actions (you know, just like the last guy).
The other interesting question is, even if the Dems take the House and/or Senate, is this new Bernie wave going to be like the Tea Party and make it very difficult to pass legislation unilaterally without Republican support?
posted by ptown_trojans_1Yeah, one could make the case that, like the Rs did, that the voters should determine who gets to pick the next justice and that the elections in November could do that. Say, it's a check on Trump to make sure he does not turn the Court too radical. It's the same argument the Rs made. I'm not sure its right, but I could easily see the argument being made.
Also, it depends on who Trump picks. If he goes with a moderate, it takes the steam out of the process. If he goes full Trump and goes full blown conservative that wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and the Gay Marriage stuff, look out....
posted by CenterBHSFanYeahhhhh I definitely agree with you on this. Twitter will win the Academy Awards with all the drama we will see in the next few days!
Days...try months.
You didn't really answer gut's question. Serious question, how can they legitimately stop it? What is stopping McConnell from using the nuclear option if he has to?
If there is something that will generate republican voter turnout, it will be for the opportunity to appoint a conservative justice. Especially after seeing how the SCOTUS ruled the last two months. That's a risky battle to pick, especially when they are defending 26 seats to 9. They are better off quadrupling down on identity politics.
posted by ptown_trojans_1Yeah, one could make the case that, like the Rs did, that the voters should determine who gets to pick the next justice and that the elections in November could do that. Say, it's a check on Trump to make sure he does not turn the Court too radical. It's the same argument the Rs made. I'm not sure its right, but I could easily see the argument being made.
That would be a terrible argument. Trump got elected so that the court wouldn't turn into Looney Tunes, and thank goodness he won now. They'll use the Nuclear option, the one that Harry Reid invoked.
I don't know exactly what the Ds could do short of gum up the hearings and fillibuster.
It all depends on who Trump nominates. If that person wants to overturn Roe v,. Wade, that could turnout the D base and lead to a very, very hostile hearing.
The hostile strategy might work for the Ds to turn out people in the midterms. Also, could back fire. We'll see.
Again, things just got uglier over the next few months. If you like pure shitstorm politics and overreactions, sit backand get your popcorn ready.
Liberals are seemingly not saying much on Twitter. Progressives, however, are collectively filling their pants.
posted by CenterBHSFanLiberals are seemingly not saying much on Twitter. Progressives, however, are collectively filling their pants.
Oh, I've already seen the abortion and gay marriage will be outlawed in 18 months tweets...
This will only just fire up the bases...