|
sullat posted:What's the run down on this? I'm a member of a public-sector union, and I haven't heard about this until the forums came back up and it was mentioned offhand, "Oh, the Supreme Court is gonna kill public sector unions". I'm pretty sure the union I'm in doesn't charge the fair share fee, and they're still kicking. I think. I would have hoped they would put something up on the message board if they were in jeopardy of being eliminated. Well, if the ruling goes as anticipated (national 'right-to-work', basically) public sector unions could only collect dues from people who voluntarily join the union. everyone else will still benefit, even if they opt not to pay a dime in union dues. public sector unions will be prohibited from collecting fair share fees. iirc in various states that have recently done this (Scott Walker in Wisconsin), public sector unions have had their dues revenue drop by 60%-80% big business man fucked around with this message at 16:11 on Jun 27, 2014 |
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 07:05 |
|
|
computer parts posted:It's a heavily Catholic state so yeah probably. Some of you guys have seriously movie-esque views of Catholics in America. Like the most Catholic states(NY, MA, CT, RI, NJ, CA) are also among the most liberal states in the nation. Polls have shown nominal Catholics in the US are also generally ok with abortion, gay marriage and gay adoption. It's the protestant states that are in fact the religious loons. e: also don't public sector unions in fact make up most union members currently? I know in the private sector unionization rates have fallen to like 6%. Amused to Death fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Jun 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 16:16
|
|
sullat posted:What's the run down on this? I'm a member of a public-sector union, and I haven't heard about this until the forums came back up and it was mentioned offhand, "Oh, the Supreme Court is gonna kill public sector unions". I'm pretty sure the union I'm in doesn't charge the fair share fee, and they're still kicking. I think. I would have hoped they would put something up on the message board if they were in jeopardy of being eliminated. If your union does not charge the "fair" share fee, it will most likely not be affected by the ruling. There are some far left people (mother jones writers) who believe that a far right ruling could outlaw public sector unions, but thats highly unlikely if not impossible.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Some of you guys have seriously movie-esque views of Catholics in America. Like the most Catholic states(NY, MA, CT, RI, NJ, CA) are also among the most liberal states in the nation. Polls have shown nominal Catholics in the US are also generally ok with abortion, gay marriage and gay adoption. It's the protestant states that are in fact the religious loons. As for the second point, that is probably the point, yes. There could be exactly one union in America representing three hundred specialized mechanical workers and it would probably be assaulted by these folks. Does the Quinn case challenge police/firemens/prison guard unions? They are probably next.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:If your union does not charge the "fair" share fee, it will most likely not be affected by the ruling. There are some far left people (mother jones writers) who believe that a far right ruling could outlaw public sector unions, but thats highly unlikely if not impossible. Crippling th union's ability to fund its operations is a de facto banning.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:If your union does not charge the "fair" share fee, it will most likely not be affected by the ruling. There are some far left people (mother jones writers) who believe that a far right ruling could outlaw public sector unions, but thats highly unlikely if not impossible. yeah, they won't be specifically 'outlawed,' but depending on the severity of the ruling it could cripple them financially. obviously, it all depends on the specifics. if the ruling is indeed authored by Alito though, things don't bode well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
Aside from the fair share fee for non-union members, is the right to automatically deduct union dues from members paychecks up for issue in this case? Because that's the serious issue with RTW, once that gets banned its over for unions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:I think the logical endpoint here is pretty bad. This buffer zone only exists to protect women from harassment and intimidation, and more importantly: violence. The ruling is really just saying 35 feet is excessive, so smaller buffer zones that prevent physical obstruction are okay. The buffer supposedly was changed in response to a shooting, but the circle is drawn from the entrance, and I've walked by two of the Boston-area clinics... at the nearest points a protestor would still be able to get near enough to shoot someone. Decreasing the buffers makes it easier to yell and intimidate but I don't think it'll increase violence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:It might stop the violance against the unborn life that is commited inside those facilities, did you ever think about that? Huge_Midget posted:
Poe's law at its finest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 17:50
|
|
Are you loving serious?
|
Based on the political tenor of GaussianCopula's other posts, I actually am not 100% sure either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Escorts should just carry pepper spray and or open carry. As tempting as this response is, that really wouldn't be a working solution to anything. First off, it sends the wrong message both to the antis and to the patients coming in -- we're trying to get the women and companions in with as little hassle and fear as possible. Doing it armed is is just going to create more scared patients, because HOLY poo poo I NEED AN ARMED GUARD? When my state passed concealed carry a few years ago, we did have a brief discussion about the idea of bullet-proof vests for escorts. We decided against it both based on logistics concerns (they ain't cheap, we ain't getting paid), and because of the message of "we're afraid of you" that it sends to the antis. Plus, if we'd start open carrying, they're going to do the same thing, and I just don't see the end results being too good. It's a very delicate balance outside the clinic -- 99% of the time it's (relatively) calm, there's the occasional jostling or elbowing, but nothing serious. But there's always that *potential* for violence, especially with some of legitimately crazy antis, that's always in the back of our minds.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
And Aereo is already getting used to quash personal streaming of live TV using the Dish Hopper.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:And Aereo is already getting used to quash personal streaming of live TV using the Dish Hopper. Aereo's entire thing was saying that they weren't a CATV system so they didn't have to pay retransmission fees. Dish is already paying retransmission fees so it doesn't seem to be particularly relevant?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:It might stop the violance against the unborn life that is commited inside those facilities, did you ever think about that? ElrondHubbard posted:Poe's law at its finest. Sorry brah, stand your ground. That woman has the right to protect herself from a threat to her health. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 19:50
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
hobbesmaster posted:Aereo's entire thing was saying that they weren't a CATV system so they didn't have to pay retransmission fees. Dish is already paying retransmission fees so it doesn't seem to be particularly relevant? Yeah, Dish's situation seems like it's more or less a copy of Cablevision's situation, which was found to be legal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Aereo's entire thing was saying that they weren't a CATV system so they didn't have to pay retransmission fees. Dish is already paying retransmission fees so it doesn't seem to be particularly relevant? Of course it's not, but that doesn't mean it won't be used to at least try to overturn Cablevision anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
sullat posted:What's the run down on this? I'm a member of a public-sector union, and I haven't heard about this until the forums came back up and it was mentioned offhand, "Oh, the Supreme Court is gonna kill public sector unions". I'm pretty sure the union I'm in doesn't charge the fair share fee, and they're still kicking. I think. I would have hoped they would put something up on the message board if they were in jeopardy of being eliminated. The way it's been said, it's basically going to eviscerate automatic deductions in union positions unless you explicitly sign up to be part of the shop. Right now you have the protection of the shop by virtue of being in the position in the first place. By taking away mandatory deductions (mine, for example, are 30 bucks a paycheck) it's going to cause a gigantic free rider problem that basically will cause unions to fold from lack of funds. And the thing is, I sorta feel for this Harris woman in her specific position but...Yeah, that's millions of barely middle class Americans hosed in the rear end. The wording of the issue: Issue: (1) Whether a state may, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, compel personal care providers to accept and financially support a private organization as their exclusive representative to petition the state for greater reimbursements from its Medicaid programs; and (2) whether the lower court erred in holding that the claims of providers in the Home Based Support Services Program are not ripe for judicial review.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
I finally got around to reading the Harris oral arguments, since everyone is talking about it:quote:JUSTICE KENNEDY: Suppose the young person thinks that the State is squandering his heritage on unnecessary and excessive payments or benefits and wages. Is that not a political belief of the highest order? And, you know, we talk about free riders, which is an epithetical phrase. Maybe the objecting employee would say that the union is a speech distorter; it is taking views that are not his and making them mandatory subject to bargaining and charging him for it. Is Kennedy really making the argument "Well how can there be a free rider problem if the state employee wants his benefits slashed and his pay to be the shittiest possible because he'd rather Illinois have a balanced budget? Then the union is screwing him over by bargaining to get paid enough to feed his family and take them to the doctor instead of spending his pay on sweet tax cuts for the top 1%  " Someone help me because I don't want that to be the case.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Is Kennedy really making the argument "Well how can there be a free rider problem if the state employee wants his benefits slashed and his pay to be the shittiest possible because he'd rather Illinois have a balanced budget? Then the union is screwing him over by bargaining to get paid enough to feed his family and take them to the doctor instead of spending his pay on sweet tax cuts for the top 1% This is why people are worried about the case. There's definitely some government employee who hold an earnest, political belief that government employees should make less money. So to avoid agreeing with this, the court would have to rule that automatic deductions somehow aren't donations. And I have no idea how they would go about doing that. e: Now that I've read the orals, though, your argument isn't actually what Kennedy's saying here. Some particular employee might heavily value pay over pension, to the extent that they'd prefer 1 more dollar in pay to a thousand more in pension money. (Perhaps they believe public pensions are inevitably doomed.) If a union trades $1 in pay for $100 in pensions, it's acted counter to her interests. So she can't be a free rider in this situation. Amarkov fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Jun 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
I'm in a union (private sectior, and thankfully, not an American one), and we just had our contract negotiations a couple of months ago. There was one worker who thought we didn't deserve the raise we got because he thought our performance the last few years wasn't good enough. Never underestimate people's ability to shoot themselves in the foot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
ExplodingChef posted:As tempting as this response is, that really wouldn't be a working solution to anything. First off, it sends the wrong message both to the antis and to the patients coming in -- we're trying to get the women and companions in with as little hassle and fear as possible. Doing it armed is is just going to create more scared patients, because HOLY poo poo I NEED AN ARMED GUARD? When my state passed concealed carry a few years ago, we did have a brief discussion about the idea of bullet-proof vests for escorts. We decided against it both based on logistics concerns (they ain't cheap, we ain't getting paid), and because of the message of "we're afraid of you" that it sends to the antis. Plus, if we'd start open carrying, they're going to do the same thing, and I just don't see the end results being too good. It's a very delicate balance outside the clinic -- 99% of the time it's (relatively) calm, there's the occasional jostling or elbowing, but nothing serious. But there's always that *potential* for violence, especially with some of legitimately crazy antis, that's always in the back of our minds. I just hate that the protestors literally staying at home and doing nothing would be an improvement.  DeusExMachinima posted:Sorry brah, stand your ground. That woman has the right to protect herself from a threat to her health. E: On topic, would national right-to-work have any effects on places that are already right-to-work like here in Texas? Or is it just "Oh hey, now you guys are screwed just like we are, good luck, you'll need it." fade5 fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Jun 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
fade5 posted:E: On topic, would national right-to-work have any effects on places that are already right-to-work like here in Texas? Or is it just "Oh hey, now you guys are screwed just like we are, good luck, you'll need it." The "national right-to-work" people are talking about would only affect government employees.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:e: Now that I've read the orals, though, your argument isn't actually what Kennedy's saying here. Some particular employee might heavily value pay over pension, to the extent that they'd prefer 1 more dollar in pay to a thousand more in pension money. (Perhaps they believe public pensions are inevitably doomed.) If a union trades $1 in pay for $100 in pensions, it's acted counter to her interests. So she can't be a free rider in this situation. There was some other stuff though about how paying employees more means a bigger government, and it seemed like in addition to the pay-now-versus-pension-later argument, Kennedy was also saying that a political preference for a small government by itself could be an employee interest that is subverted when his union dues go toward bargaining better pay. That's how it read to me, but I would love to be wrong, because that sounds dumb as hell and I hope a Supreme Court Justice wouldn't really suggest that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
SCOTUS 2014: DEHUMANIZE YOURSELF AND FACE TO BLOOSHED
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
He seemed to agree that, if unions did salary negotiation and only salary negotiation, they'd be fine. An increase in pay may technically be an increase in the size of the government, and thus the union activity is technically a political position. But government-as-employer has been held to get some leeway in this regard, and nobody seems inclined to change that. The issue Kennedy brought up on the preceding page was about something subtly different. Unions routinely negotiate for an increase in staff (or a reduction in hours, which is the same thing). This is a direct increase in the size of the government, but it only creates a free-rider problem to the extent that employees care about the number of hours they work. So if there exists some government employee who doesn't mind working more hours, he's getting his pay deducted for a political purpose to handle a free-rider problem that doesn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
Is there a certain date by which they have to rule on Hobby Lobby?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
Monday is the last day of the term.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
Silver Nitrate posted:Is there a certain date by which they have to rule on Hobby Lobby? And so that's just the schedule. The Justices like their summer off. Thus, all opinions for cases heard in each term are out by June. In accordance with that schedule, CJ Roberts announced on Thursday that the final opinions for this term will be issued on Monday (June 30). That means Hobby Lobby.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Aside from the fair share fee for non-union members, is the right to automatically deduct union dues from members paychecks up for issue in this case? Because that's the serious issue with RTW, once that gets banned its over for unions. Well, unions can collect dues in right to work states. Thats not why right to work states are bad for unions. In some states, you are required to be a member of a union to work for the government. There's no issue there, they just make you pay dues. In states that aren't right to work but also say you are allowed to not be in the union, the unions usually assess an agency fee (often called a free rider fee) to the non-union members. When a state becomes right to work, that means people don't have to be in the union AND the union is no longer allowed to charge the agency fee to non-union members. So what happens then is greedy selfish human nature takes over, people leave the union or elect not to join in droves, and the union's funds are dramatically slashed. This is why unions are very weak in right to work states. For a union to really be strong, you need to make everyone pay for the work that the union is doing on their behalf. Northjayhawk fucked around with this message at 03:01 on Jun 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:In accordance with that schedule, CJ Roberts announced on Thursday that the final opinions for this term will be issued on Monday (June 30). That means Hobby Lobby.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
They could reargue it too, like another certain case about the rights of corporations 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
Assuming Hill still stands, would the MA Legislature just be able to pass a floating buffer zone law instead of the static one?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
Is it likely that the decision will not affect Abood vs Detroit? Something along the lines of receiving medicaid reimbursement for homecare isn't actually working for the government the way teachers do and so forth?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
Real hurthling! posted:Is it likely that the decision will not affect Abood vs Detroit? Something along the lines of receiving medicaid reimbursement for homecare isn't actually working for the government the way teachers do and so forth? If Roberts or Alito writes the decision as almost everyone expects, then this is the absolute best-case scenario: that the supreme court rules narrowly by somehow deciding that they are not government employees, and so those homecare workers don't need to pay a union. However, people who are paying attention to the case more than me are saying this is very unlikely, and that these are clearly government workers in the eyes of the law even though it may seem odd to us. So, the only other possibility for a ruling other than the one we're now expecting is that Roberts or Alito originally got assigned to the opinion, but in the course of writing it they lost the majority and so the controlling opinion will be written by some unknown mystery justice. That is very unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
There's also the option that the “labor peace” argument doesn't apply to workers like Harris where there isn't really a central workplace. And I wouldn't read too much into the authorship; Roberts and Alito were the reason the first Citizens United case was won extremely narrowly (FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life).
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Assuming Hill still stands, would the MA Legislature just be able to pass a floating buffer zone law instead of the static one? There are a bunch of ways around this particular case, the law at issue was really badly designed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 05:01
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:There's also the option that the “labor peace” argument doesn't apply to workers like Harris where there isn't really a central workplace. Please read Alito's ruling in Knox v. SEIU if you think that Alito might be a friend of the public employee unions (hint: he is not).
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 07:29
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:It appears this is the site in question, with the now-meaningless 35-foot line. One of these things is not like the others. One of these things, isn't the same. Political speech is important. Political speech should be protected. People crafting policy which affects you and me should not be allowed to "protect" themselves from listening to our political speech. A private citizen going to their doctor is not obliged to listen to a no-choice nutter rant in the way a representative or government official is. They have a duty to listen. I don't. Since I am not a holder of public office yelling at me isn't political. It's just being a loving rear end in a top hat. Edit to add: Also, its "planned" parenthood. Not "prevented" parenthood. They do pre-natal exams, programs to help addicted women get clean for/during a pregnancy, help out with maternal nutrition and pre natal vitamins, etc. So visibly pregnant women go into PP offices and come out still pregnant. They didn't get an abortion because that wasn't why they came to PP. Most abortions happen in the first 8 weeks before there is a visible indicator of pregnancy. And they sure a hell aren't going to tell the no-choice mob why they are there. So the women who get the worst treatment going in are the expectant mothers. And these are also where most/all "we changed their mind" anecdotes a come from. Oh noes! A visibly pregnant woman went in and we could not stop her!! Yay! She came out and didn't kill the innocent babyJesus in her tummy! She must have seen our signs and heard our voices and realized how wrong she was! Go team Jeebus! McAlister fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Jun 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
Just an anecdote, but I live in New York and drove past a planned parenthood most mornings a year or two ago. There were still five or six old white people protesting out front every day. The best part was that the clinic was set far off in the back, with a large parking lot in front and the entire property of the clinic had these huge gates in front. Both sides of it were apartment buildings. They couldn't block the entryway or sidewalk so these sad assholes were basically forced to protest in the street. You didn't really need an escort becuase you could basically just drive past them. You could also just run in from the sidewalk through a gate and they couldn't follow you on the property. It was jusy suprising to me, since even in the most liberal enclaves there are these people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 01:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 07:05 |
|
|
Its statistics. Given the number of retirees/empty nesters in an area looking for meaning in their remaining lives some tiny fraction of a fraction of a percent will gravitate to clinic protesting. What's five people out of millions? Unlike working in a soup kitchen or collecting signatures or other common ways to volunteer in your community, clinic protesting involves hanging out with your friends while shouting at your moral inferiors. This will always attract a certain kind of person when it is permitted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 02:00
|
|