|
“Ardlen” posted:If Janus overrules Abood v. Detroit Board of Education and says that everyone doesn’t have to pay union dues, does this mean that unions only have to represent dues-paying members? My understanding is that the reasoning in Abood was that since everyone benefits, everyone has to pay. Most likely not, as anti-union-shop right to work laws for the private sector haven't been interpreted that way. It feels like the LMRA needs to be amended to explicitly make the duty of fair representation only apply to dues paying members in any situation where a union is legally prohibited from requiring payment of dues from all employees. But that won't happen because the duty of fair representation is a key part of the GOP strategy to break unions as without it the free rider problem basically disappears.
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 14:06 |
|
|
If I'm reading you right, the GOP loses some of its power here if unions didn't have to bargain on behalf of those who don't pay membership?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:If I'm reading you right, the GOP loses some of its power here if unions didn't have to bargain on behalf of those who don't pay membership? Sort of, though it's because it would draw a line between dues-paying and non-dues-paying workers, the latter receiving none of the representation and thus benefits of collective contract negotiations. Basically you'd have contract and non-contract workers in that sense, where non-cons can get hosed because they chose not to be represented.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:If I'm reading you right, the GOP loses some of its power here if unions didn't have to bargain on behalf of those who don't pay membership? Right, it would defang right to work legislation. The GOP and management doesn't give a poo poo about employees keeping more of their money, what they care about is getting rid of unions and the easiest way to do that is to bankrupt them. Right to work and the duty of fair representation puts unions in an untenable position: they have to pay the expenses involved with representing all employees while not being able to collect dues from all employees. Employees are incentivized to make this worse because why pay dues when you can get all of the major benefits for free? Dues have to go up or union services go down and it repeats over and over as each turn through the cycle makes paying look even less worthwhile. However we would need to be very very careful about how it is done. The duty was put into place because unions were being racist and corrupt shits by selectively refusing to bother negotiating for or representing grievances for minorities or people who disobeyed the union boss (by not voting a particular way or not "donating" to a particular cause).
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
I don't see anything at all that would suggest duty of fair representation would apply to the employees that chose to opt out; companies with unionized and non- unionised employees are fairly common in some industries and the unions there are under no obligation, as far as i can tell, to the non unionised employees. Though in practice you'll often see some things, like the union negotiated holidays, to apply to everyone simply because it's easier to sync that up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
My union doesn't represent non-members but we also don't have a contract and the "representation" only means you can have a union rep come to a disciplinary hearing. They still advocate across the board raises for everyone during budget season though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:My union doesn't represent non-members but we also don't have a contract and the "representation" only means you can have a union rep come to a disciplinary hearing. They still advocate across the board raises for everyone during budget season though. In Australia there is no compulsory unionism any more, and hasn't been for a while. What happens generally is that for grievances (unsatisfactory performance, dismissal, etc) the unions, at least the uni based ones, can only represent members. You do get the issue occasionally of people only joining when they're in trouble, but that is discouraged where possible. For uni wide enterprise bargaining, the unions negotiate for the workforce as a whole, not just the members.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
The oral argument for the gerrymandering case was held this morning. Predictably, the 4 liberal votes were firmly on one side, while the 4 conservatives talked about how impossible it was to ever find a workable standard, math be damned. Maddeningly, the only vote that matters held his cards close to the vest and said very little.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
Rigel posted:The oral argument for the gerrymandering case was held this morning. Predictably, the 4 liberal votes were firmly on one side, while the 4 conservatives talked about how impossible it was to ever find a workable standard, math be damned. Perhaps I'm feeling especially pessimistic today, but I feel like Kennedy will favor the status quo with a complaint over technical details to the formula.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
Nobody should trust Kennedy to do the right thing in this case. Be pleasantly surprised if he does, but his gay rights stance aside, he's still a conservative.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Mother Jones seems to believe that Kennedy's questioning shows that he's looking for a reason to rule in favor of the plaintiffs and if he does I will pour a glass of the fine whisky tonight in his honor. If he doesn't, it's lovely bourbon and a prayer to Satan to eat my soul and carry me to hell because hell will be a better democracy than America in 15 years anyways.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
Ripoff posted:Mother Jones seems to believe that Kennedy's questioning shows that he's looking for a reason to rule in favor of the plaintiffs and if he does I will pour a glass of the fine whisky tonight in his honor. Well with your time machine that lets you travel from decision day to tonight you should be fine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
Syzygy Stardust posted:Well with your time machine that lets you travel from decision day to tonight you should be fine. Yeah that's true, deliberation can take weeks on this. I was just hoping for some decent news as I'm moving into a chunk of GA-6 where my vote will literally never count, ever, and the possibility of getting folks together to force a change would be amazing.  I shouldn't get too excited to know, but the chance to break this bullshit up makes me feel good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
Ripoff posted:Yeah that's true, deliberation can take weeks on this. I was just hoping for some decent news as I'm moving into a chunk of GA-6 where my vote will literally never count, ever, and the possibility of getting folks together to force a change would be amazing. months, usually, especially a case like this that is going to set precedent for a fuckload of litigation (if it comes down in favor of the plaintiffs) that the supreme court would rather the appeals courts handle without further intervention
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
quote:Kennedy responded that a manageable standard could be whether a map was drawn with the “overriding concern ” to “have a maximum number of votes for party X or party Y.” on the one hand yes, that's a reasonable standard, on the other hand it seems like a standard he could have come up with a decade ago
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
[quote="“evilweasel”" post="“477026274”"] months, usually, especially a case like this that is going to set precedent for a fuckload of litigation (if it comes down in favor of the plaintiffs) that the supreme court would rather the appeals courts handle without further intervention [/quote] So the court's opinion would have to cover every base possible for future challenges to prevent someone from finding a gap in their ruling and bringing the case back to SCOTUS? I apologize for my idiocy but I'm far from a lawyer or legal scholar, I just find this fascinating even if the result can also be terrifying.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
Ripoff posted:So the court's opinion would have to cover every base possible for future challenges to prevent someone from finding a gap in their ruling and bringing the case back to SCOTUS? I apologize for my idiocy but I'm far from a lawyer or legal scholar, I just find this fascinating even if the result can also be terrifying. I mean, it doesn't have to, but the Supreme Court likes to avoid making additional work for itself, which means doing cases right the first time. Whatever right might mean to the majority in a given case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
Ripoff posted:So the court's opinion would have to cover every base possible for future challenges to prevent someone from finding a gap in their ruling and bringing the case back to SCOTUS? I apologize for my idiocy but I'm far from a lawyer or legal scholar, I just find this fascinating even if the result can also be terrifying. They would like to have a ruling which accomplishes this, yes. The fear from the right, and its a legit fear, is that every map in every state will be litigated every year and bog down the courts, its why Kennedy couldn't get to yes last time. I think the experts have it figured out now with the efficiency standard, if Kennedy declares that anything above x% is illegal, then a court can simply ask an expert to analyze the map and if its >x%, its tossed. The appeals court may not even need to bother with it, and legislators will quickly adjust and make sure all maps are gerrymandered just below the allowable threshold. Thats why there's a chance that Kennedy may vote with the left this time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
Ripoff posted:So the court's opinion would have to cover every base possible for future challenges to prevent someone from finding a gap in their ruling and bringing the case back to SCOTUS? I apologize for my idiocy but I'm far from a lawyer or legal scholar, I just find this fascinating even if the result can also be terrifying. It's not so much to prevent someone from finding a gap in their ruling. It's so that it's clear about what they want the lower courts to do, so that the lower courts (a) don't disagree about how to apply it and (b) don't apply it in a way that the court didn't want them to. The Supreme Court isn't trying to resolve every single future challenge: it wants to set out clear principles for the lower courts to resolve those future challenges. The clearer the Court is now, the less trouble down the road. Also, because of a quirk of the law with these types of decisions all of the cases can get appealed to the Supreme Court (usually, a case can only get appealed to the Supreme Court if the Supreme Court allows it, which happens about 2% of the time) so the more often it's right the first time, the more often they can just say "affirmed for the reasons stated below, go away." Also, because Kennedy loves to sound noble in his Important Decisions. Rigel posted:They would like to have a ruling which accomplishes this, yes. The fear from the right, and its a legit fear, is that every map in every state will be litigated every year and bog down the courts, its why Kennedy couldn't get to yes last time. I think that's not a real concern though. Every map might get litigated...but only every decade not year. The courts can handle 50 major litigations once every decade (and that's before you take out non-partisan redistricting states, one-rep states, etc).
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I think the experts have it figured out now with the efficiency standard, if Kennedy declares that anything above x% is illegal, then a court can simply ask an expert to analyze the map and if its >x%, its tossed. I doubt they'll decide a number like that and put it in the opinion. That doesn't seem like it's how the supreme court tends to operate because deciding on a number like that is on some level inherently arbitrary. Usually in these kinds of cases they'll ask the parties involved to propose a standard and also have that standard square somewhat with existing precedent. If Kennedy votes with the left side of the court I anticipate them going with a standard based on the "one person, one vote," doctrine that relies on wasted vote calculations and then dilutes the impact of the decision by requiring clear evidence of intent to draw maps that cause the votes of voters of specific political parties to be wasted. They'll probably leave the decision of precisely how much is too much up to individual judges. This will fix the problem a bit, but probably not as much as people like because it will just mean political parties have to be a lot less mustache-twirlingly evil and stupid than the Wisconsin GOP(holy gently caress were they idiots) when they gerrymander in the future. ErIog fucked around with this message at 01:18 on Oct 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/JKastellec/status/915310329164451840
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
He also doesn't know how statistics work: https://twitter.com/donmoyn/status/915310282863456257
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
I have some hope from Kennedy on this one. He's a pretty libertarian guy so anytime something like corporate rights vs human rights comes up  human rights, but on the other hand he's actually a pretty libertarian guy so he genuinely believes that the government not be up everyone's vaginas and everyone's buttholes and controlling our sex lives, and also that we shouldn't have a one-party state where the government explicitly controls who wins elections (it should be in a deniable way that still has the appearance of democratic governance like budget cuts that reduce or eliminate polling in black neighborhoods while requiring IDs that are difficult to get if you don't have a car and the ability to take off the one Wednesday afternoon a month where the issuing office is open), but gerrymandering like the GOP is doing is just openly corrupt and partisan so it's really uncouth.But even if Kennedy votes with the conservatives, there's still hope. If Democrats kill it in the 2020 state elections, they can gerrymander the gently caress out of the country and we'll have an 8-1 ruling against gerrymandering within the year I guarantee it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
Good thread expanding on that "gobbledygook" line. https://twitter.com/JKastellec/status/915388079283802113
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
Whether Roberts knows or not doesn't change the fact that he gives zero fucks and there is literally nothing that will change how he's going to rule in this case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 05:26
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Gorsuch: The Constitution doesn't say Gerrymandering is bad therefore it's ok and good just like this paint I'm drinking. I got caught up on the thread because the term started and  he said this
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 05:27
|
|
|
I highly doubt the court will actually rule on a specific number, because numbers are mathematical and a mathematical rule can be disproven outside of the court at a future date. Justices don't want to accidentally rule that pi is equal to exactly 3 and become laughingstocks in textbooks for centuries.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 08:53
|
|
|
no judge is going to defer wholesale to social scientists
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 09:35
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:no judge is going to defer wholesale to social scientists Yeah, and they're also probably not going to use something like party symmetry because the 2 party system isn't a legal precedent and symmetry becomes incredibly difficult if you have any more than 2 parties. The amount of weird discourse around this case is really insane and makes me really question the media's ability to communicate to normal people anything substantial about what SCOTUS does.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 10:02
|
|
|
ErIog posted:The amount of weird discourse around this case is really insane and makes me really question the media's ability to communicate to normal people anything substantial about what SCOTUS does. There isn't really a question, they can't and never have been able to. SCOTUS are generally a collection of the finest dissemblers in the country, albeit Alito and Gorsuch are such unbelievably dumb hacks that they can't even lie well like Roberts, Kennedy or the corpse of Scalia all could. They're experts at inventing spurious reasoning to justify whatever the hell they want to do and have been since Korematsu hell they have been since long before korematsu
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 10:21
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I think that's not a real concern though. Every map might get litigated...but only every decade not year. The courts can handle 50 major litigations once every decade (and that's before you take out non-partisan redistricting states, one-rep states, etc). Apparently Roberts disagreed with the case because (out of many reasons he gave) the challenge was to the state map as a whole and not individual districts. SCOTUSBlog posted:Chief Justice John Roberts seemed to disagree. He told attorney Paul Smith, who argued on behalf of the plaintiffs challenging the map, that allowing plaintiffs in a partisan-gerrymandering case to challenge an entire map seemed inconsistent with the court’s rule that plaintiffs in racial-gerrymandering cases can only challenge their own districts, not the whole map.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 11:38
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:He also doesn't know how statistics work: Well, if you feel like you cannot understand the matter at hand, feel free to sit this one out, fucko.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
Part of me thinks the usage of "sociological" in that derisive context echoes of how particularly garbage people call school integration and busing a "social experiment" which is exactly what you would expect to come from the likes of Roberts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
ErIog posted:I doubt they'll decide a number like that and put it in the opinion. That doesn't seem like it's how the supreme court tends to operate because deciding on a number like that is on some level inherently arbitrary. Usually in these kinds of cases they'll ask the parties involved to propose a standard and also have that standard square somewhat with existing precedent. Existing precedent actually does have a raw number for what makes a one person, one vote deviation. Basically, anything under 10% is fine for a state legislative district size deviation. Harris v. Arizona posted:We have further made clear that “minor deviations from mathematical equality” do not, by themselves, “make out a Admittedly, the Court has said elsewhere that it's more like: Less than 10% deviation between the size of legislative districts, no prima facie case, you need to show some other evidence of vote dilution. More than 10%, you have a prima facie case, and can win just on this number if the state can't justify it. More than 16.4%, the state can't justify it. In reality, it's two levels: Less than 10%, challenger loses. More than 10%, state loses. ulmont fucked around with this message at 16:25 on Oct 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
Should size be geography or population?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Should size be geography or population? Land doesn't vote, so that's an easy one to answer. e: and the quoted case makes itself clear that size is defined as population.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
FronzelNeekburm posted:Apparently Roberts disagreed with the case because (out of many reasons he gave) the challenge was to the state map as a whole and not individual districts. This case is too big, therefore no single person has standing. Case dismissed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
Reality Winner posted:This case is too big, therefore no single person has standing. Case dismissed. AKA the walmart class action decision.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I have some hope from Kennedy on this one...
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 14:06 |
|
|
dwarf74 posted:From what I saw of his position in the North Carolina case, I am not optimistic. Based on the questions he asked, I am now very optimistic. He didn't say a word to the side arguing against gerrymandering, saving all of his questions for the lawyers defending Wisconsin, and near the beginning he got straight to the point. He stated that if the legislature passed a law explicitly stating that all maps must be drawn to disadvantage the Democratic party as much as possible, then they would obviously strike that down, so shouldn't the court accept the possibility that the legislature might be doing that without announcing their intention?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 16:21
|
|