Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, January 18, 2018

Opinion piece: Organized labor faces a transformation this year. In February, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Janus v. AFSCME to decide whether government employees can be fired for refusing to pay union dues. A decision for petitioner Mark Janus could extend right-to-work protections to millions of public employees, and the implications for public policy and national politics are profound.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

AFSCME, the union currently collecting dues from Janus, is preparing for the worst. The union told Bloomberg it had conducted 600,000 one-on-one interviews with members. If Janus wins, the union believes 35 percent will stay in "no matter what," 15 percent will stop paying dues, with the remaining 50 percent "on the fence."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Interesting.

It's kind of telling that just about the only thing a government employee can be fired for is failing to pay union dues.

Set off an incoming missile alarm causing mass panic - keep your job.

Dump a bunch of gold-colored toxic sludge into a river - keep your job.

Miss a union due payment and you're gone!

#1 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-18 10:57 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Dump a bunch of gold-colored toxic sludge into a river - keep your job.

It would help if you came up with actual examples of government employee negligence.

#2 | Posted by jpw at 2018-01-18 11:17 AM | Reply

It would help if you came up with actual examples of government employee negligence.

#2 | POSTED BY JPW

I just cited two examples. Both of those things happened.

#3 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-18 11:20 AM | Reply

I didn't debate that the one I quoted happened, just that it's not an example of what you're claiming it is an example of, namely, government employee negligence.

#4 | Posted by jpw at 2018-01-18 11:28 AM | Reply

I didn't debate that the one I quoted happened, just that it's not an example of what you're claiming it is an example of, namely, government employee negligence.

#4 | POSTED BY JPW

The EPA was responsible for it. The EPA caused it to happen. It never should have happened. If it wasn't negligence, what was it?

#5 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-18 11:47 AM | Reply

The problem is that the moochers will still want the benefits of being in the union but without paying the dues.

When the unions are gone and their contracts expire and no one is around to negotiate a new one there will be a collective group of these moochers crying about being screwed.

#6 | Posted by 726 at 2018-01-18 11:52 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Gee Jeff. Government cleaning up a corporate mess left after profits dried up (ie superfund sites) resulted in an improperly closed mine discharging the expected results of that kind of mining is clearly the government agency's fault.

Just like a terrorist's bomb being detonated by a bomb squad guy clipping the wrong wire is clearly the fault of the bomb squad guy, right? I mean the bomb was doing just fine before he started incompetently messing with it, no?

#7 | Posted by jpw at 2018-01-18 11:54 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"A decision for petitioner Mark Janus could extend right-to-work protections"

Right to work for less.

#8 | Posted by 726 at 2018-01-18 11:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

""A decision for petitioner Mark Janus could extend right-to-work protections"

Got to wonder how much he was paid to bring his suit.

#9 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-18 12:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

1st off Government employees should not be unionized even FDR said as much 2nd Government employee unions should not be allowed to be politically active they should not be able to sway who thier boss will be its a conflict of interest that's been going on too long in the major cities that has resulted in all kinds of mismanagement from pensions on down.

#10 | Posted by WTFIGO at 2018-01-18 01:15 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

"1st off Government employees should not be unionized even FDR said as much..." - #10 | Posted by WTFIGO at 2018-01-18 01:15 PM

The case cited in the linked article is Janus v AFSCME. AFSCME, as in American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

No statements as to FDR's views on collective bargaining for state or municipal workers were found among his papers as Governor of New York or as President.
Oops.

#11 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-18 01:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"1st off Government employees should not be unionized even FDR said as much 2nd Government employee unions should not be allowed to be politically active they should not be able to sway who thier boss will be its a conflict of interest that's been going on too long in the major cities that has resulted in all kinds of mismanagement from pensions on down."

Then abolish all the police unions.

#12 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-18 01:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

"Then abolish all the police unions." - #12 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-18 01:28 PM

Most excellent retort, Danni!

#13 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-18 01:29 PM | Reply

"2nd Government employee unions should not be allowed to be politically active they should not be able to sway who thier boss will be"

But corporations doing business with the government are ok being politically active?

#14 | Posted by 726 at 2018-01-18 02:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

Then abolish all the police unions." - #12 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-18 01:28 PM
Most excellent retort, Danni!

#13 | POSTED BY HANS AT 2018-01-18 01:29 PM | FLAG:

How is that an excellent Retort the police are government employees so my original statement stands they should not be politically active working for the government

#15 | Posted by WTFIGO at 2018-01-18 03:04 PM | Reply

"2nd Government employee unions should not be allowed to be politically active they should not be able to sway who thier boss will be"
But corporations doing business with the government are ok being politically active?

#14 | POSTED BY 726 AT 2018-01-18 02:36 PM | FLAG: | NEWSWORTHY 3

Apples and oranges those companies do not rely on the government for pay increases or pension and medical benefits talks.

#16 | Posted by WTFIGO at 2018-01-18 03:06 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Many businesses financially benefit from government decisions. It drives the lobbying industry. Should all employees become corporations in order to influence government?
Are professional organizations allowed for Medicare doctors?

Unions are largely responsible for good paying jobs. As unions decline, so will good paying jobs.

#17 | Posted by bored at 2018-01-18 04:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"Unions are largely responsible for good paying jobs. As unions decline, so will good paying jobs."

That's not even remotely true. What percentage of workers in top 50% of income earners are union members?

In any case, the headline is somewhat misleading. In fact one of the key points of the article was that a ruling in favor of Janus would likely drive unions to focus more on the needs of the members, as opposed to pursuing political goals that had nothing to do with the members themselves.

#18 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-19 10:55 AM | Reply

"That's not even remotely true. What percentage of workers in top 50% of income earners are union members?"

What's the wage difference between the same job in a union state vs. a right to work state?

#19 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-19 11:46 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Got to wonder how much he was paid to bring his suit.

#9 | Posted by danni

He may not of - many people are naturally stupid and we don't let Darwinism deal with them.

#20 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2018-01-19 01:33 PM | Reply

#18 | Posted by madbomber

And what are the needs of members? From what I have witnessed overall they do a pretty good job for their members - too good in some respects such as discipline. It is totally an us vs them mentality where unions are. It is true though. IF corporations and unions used their heads EVERYONE would be better off. That unfortunately is not allowed to happen by either side.

#21 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2018-01-19 01:36 PM | Reply

Apples and oranges those companies do not rely on the government for pay increases or pension and medical benefits talks.

#16 | Posted by WTFIGO

They don't? What do you call all those mega contracts for this example let's say the military with the likes of Lockheed? Well maybe you are right. They certainly result in CEO pay increases and stockholder dividends.

#22 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2018-01-19 01:38 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort