|
Litany Unheard posted:The lower court decision was for the Unions, right? It's doubly funny because the plaintiffs asked the lower courts to rule against them so they could get to the SCOTUS faster!
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 12:14 |
|
|
Litany Unheard posted:The lower court decision was for the Unions, right? Yeah the district court held for the unions, the circuit court gave a two paragraph ruling that there were SCOTUS cases that controlled, and SCOTUS gave a 1 line per curium affirmed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
It's pretty funny between that and the chemical company settling right after Scalia died how nakedly partisan everyone understood his rulings to be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roRQ2mNwMMQ Scalia's death continues to pay us cultural dividends.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:It's doubly funny because the plaintiffs asked the lower courts to rule against them so they could get to the SCOTUS faster! Hey now, they just wanted to get to SCOTUS before Scalia died.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
So what would've happened had this been heard when the Court still had 9 members? What was the case actually about?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
axeil posted:So what would've happened had this been heard when the Court still had 9 members? What was the case actually about?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
axeil posted:So what would've happened had this been heard when the Court still had 9 members? What was the case actually about? Basically right now public sector unions are in a "union shop" environment where you're automatically in the union and they'll take a small chunk out of your paycheck for dues. The case was trying to get rid of all of that, and making it your regular right to work (which is not "at will") environment that's in the private sector.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
axeil posted:So what would've happened had this been heard when the Court still had 9 members? What was the case actually about? Public-sector unions charge dues to their members and a smaller "agency fee" to non-members because the non-members benefit from their bargaining. A group of non-members filed suit because they disagreed politically with the union's activities but were forced to pay these fees anyway. Had the Court ruled for them with a clear majority, these fees would have been eliminated nationwide and weakened all public-sector unions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Basically right now public sector unions are in a "union shop" environment where you're automatically in the union and they'll take a small chunk out of your paycheck for dues. The case was trying to get rid of all of that, and making it your regular right to work (which is not "at will") environment that's in the private sector. The issue is that unions have a free-rider problem. If you can get the benefits (higher wages, better benefits) of a union without actually being in the union, why join? The agency fee is intended to make sure that everybody bears the cost equally. Otherwise, there's a substantial financial incentive not to join. (The whole economic/ethical benefits of unionization at all, I'm not competent to defend.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
axeil posted:So what would've happened had this been heard when the Court still had 9 members? What was the case actually about? It's been touched on, but basically public sector unions would no longer be able to collect compulsory dues and a ruling against them would essentially destroy public sector unions. The theory that they sued on was this: public sector unions currently cannot use compulsory dues for political lobbying. Because public sector union employees are employees of the state, 100% of the union's activity is political lobbying and thus they cannot collect compulsory dues from anyone. This lost at the district court and circuit court because there is existing controlling precedent. With Scalia alive, this would have been overturned.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
quote:a million explanations Ah thanks guys. As a former public sector union employee this makes a lot of sense. Didn't know the whole reason this case went forward is someone argued all actions of a public sector union were political actions, which seems like an insane argument to me. By that same logic, are all actions of a government contractor political actions? I mean they're getting paid with public funds after all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
axeil posted:Ah thanks guys. As a former public sector union employee this makes a lot of sense. Didn't know the whole reason this case went forward is someone argued all actions of a public sector union were political actions, which seems like an insane argument to me. By that same logic, are all actions of a government contractor political actions? I mean they're getting paid with public funds after all. Generally yes. Companies will lobby for particular projects and spend money in manners that they find are politically expedient. It's why the F35 is being designed or sourced from like 45 different states in the country. You cancel the F35, you take away money being sent to the constituents of 90 senators and hundreds of representatives. Many of those shops are going to be owned by minorities, veterans, or disabilities or some combination thereof too. The only exception is that companies will develop their own internal R&D for things that they'll see being technologically viable or a major upgrade down the road. But even then that'll be likely used as a chip in the next set of contract negotiations. OJ MIST 2 THE DICK fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Mar 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
Just to be clear the small fee paid by non numbers usually only funds CBA work and not political activity. I am pretty sure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Just to be clear the small fee paid by non numbers usually only funds CBA work and not political activity. Correct. The union must have a separate pot of money besides compulsory dues used for political activity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
axeil posted:Ah thanks guys. As a former public sector union employee this makes a lot of sense. Didn't know the whole reason this case went forward is someone argued all actions of a public sector union were political actions, which seems like an insane argument to me. By that same logic, are all actions of a government contractor political actions? I mean they're getting paid with public funds after all. That's the ultimate goal of the people litigating this against the unions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:That's the ultimate goal of the people litigating this against the unions. That seems like an insane/terrible endgoal. The government buys lots of things from lots of companies. Are people going to argue with a straight face that "random lightbulb supply company" is making a political action when they sell a bunch of lightbulbs to some office in DC?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Yes, because then you can keep the government from doing anything
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
axeil posted:That seems like an insane/terrible endgoal. The government buys lots of things from lots of companies. Are people going to argue with a straight face that "random lightbulb supply company" is making a political action when they sell a bunch of lightbulbs to some office in DC? Of course it's insane and terrible, but the point is to utterly gently caress any kind of worker's organization or rights over, and they ultimately would love to make everything even resembling a union illegal. But in the meantime, finding loopholes like this to dick over unions where they can will do nicely in their eyes. Thank Christ Scalia jacked himself to death when he did.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
Pretty sure the anti-Union crowd is totally okay with corporate lobbying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:Pretty sure the anti-Union crowd is totally okay with corporate lobbying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:Pretty sure the anti-Union crowd is totally okay with corporate lobbying. The Free Hand of Capitalism 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
Oracle posted:Corporations are people, my friend. Persons. They are persons. Of all threads lets get it right in this one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Persons. They are persons. Is this a grammar issue or a legal terms issue? Is 'persons' defined differently than 'people'?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Is this a grammar issue or a legal terms issue? Is 'persons' defined differently than 'people'? Personhood is a legal term for a type of entity entitled to certain rights and privileges. I.e. children may not be considered persons depending on the jurisdiction and context.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Persons. They are persons. "Corporations are people, my friends" is a direct Romney quote.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
axeil posted:That seems like an insane/terrible endgoal. The government buys lots of things from lots of companies. Are people going to argue with a straight face that "random lightbulb supply company" is making a political action when they sell a bunch of lightbulbs to some office in DC? A lot of people (including me) would consider participating in a lightbulb boycott against the government, or (e.g.) refusing to sell lightbulbs to the army in a time of war, as political actions. The act of selling light bulbs to the government should be understood in that context. Depending on whatever hypothetical government lightbulb regulation is challenged, a hypothetical claimant might exist who is able to raise first amendment issues. Lightbulbs as speech is a stronger case IMO than union dues as speech.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:"Corporations are people, my friends" is a direct Romney quote. Oh. Well he is dumb. Rygar201 posted:Is this a grammar issue or a legal terms issue? Is 'persons' defined differently than 'people'? People have full rights including political rights. Persons can include people and other legal bodies which have limited rights such as the right to own property and sue. Corporation just means fictional person. This is more clearly seen in things like cities and counties which are municipal corporations. The us code defines corporations as persons but not people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Oh. Well he is dumb. While hilarious, that Mitt Romney quote is constantly taken out of context. In context, as I recall, it would have been more accurately phrased as corporations are MADE UP OF people [and therefore not soulless evil artificial intelligences]. I think that diagnosis ignores the fact that the corporate entity acts sort of like a composite entity and even the C-level folks are partially beholden to corporate structure and priorities, and is therefore kind of dumb and whitewashy, but it's not QUITE as dumb as the soundbite alone sounds.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
The sufficient context for that quote is that it was said by Mitt Romney, to be honest. Meanwhile, SCOTUS is doing something interesting and basically said "please tell us in what way you would like birth control coverage to be handled without offending your sensibilities".
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Oh. Well he is dumb. You have to see it to get the full effect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlPQkd_AA6c Yeah I have no idea why we didn't elect Robot McSmugface.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
"Corporation are made up of people" is basically Citizens United so that is less dumb.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:While hilarious, that Mitt Romney quote is constantly taken out of context. In context, as I recall, it would have been more accurately phrased as corporations are MADE UP OF people [and therefore not soulless evil artificial intelligences]. therefore Hobby Lobby was correctly decided 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:While hilarious, that Mitt Romney quote is constantly taken out of context. In context, as I recall, it would have been more accurately phrased as corporations are MADE UP OF people [and therefore not soulless evil artificial intelligences]. If you recognize made up of people, you come dangerously close to recognizing that those people have interests and that corporations aren't just a nexus of contracts extracting value for shareholders. If every employee of Exxon died tonight, Exxon would still exist tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:If you recognize made up of people, you come dangerously close to recognizing that those people Politifact nominates this as lie of the year.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
It's charitable to say that the idea of corporations being democratic representatives of the people working in them is a delusion, because this is not actually what Republicans think either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:It's charitable to say that the idea of corporations being democratic representatives of the people working in them is a delusion, because this is not actually what Republicans think either. Sure they are, it's just that only shareholders are people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
To inaccurately quote something someone once said, corporations will be people when the state executes one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
El Scotch posted:
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 12:14 |
|
|
Large publicly held corps aren't the only form. Many probably the vast majority of corps are privately held family businesses or businesses where the officers are the shareholders.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 23:36
|
|