* From a Belleville News Democrat editorial…
Mark Janus was told that he had to pay union dues to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31 if he wanted to work for Illinois.
Um, no, he wasn’t. He was told he had to pay fair share fees for the benefits he received from the union contract.
* Same editorial…
Janus objected to AFSCME spending one-quarter of his roughly $600 a year in union fees on politics, especially when it spent only about 20 percent on representing workers.
I could not find confirmation of that “20 percent” figure anywhere. Perhaps someone else can help.
* Jim Dey…
In not paying the equivalent of dues, these non-joiners will no longer have to subsidize the political causes and candidates the union spends dues money to advance.
Fair share fees couldn’t be used for campaigns.
However, because people can now get full union service for free, that could very well cause the union to spend more member dues on servicing the freeloaders. And that, in turn, could cause them to spend less on everything else.
* Tribune editorial…
We’re intrigued — and hopeful — about the implications of Janus v. AFSCME Council 31. If government workers don’t have to contribute, maybe this begins a reckoning for the political class of Illinois. We’re not great fans of that symbiosis between one party and the public’s workforce. Unions
AFSCME and the IEA in particular had a long history of backing Republicans. For crying out loud, the IEA endorsed conservative Rep. Dwight Kay (R-Glen Carbon) in 2014. But when Rauner was elected, Kay and others went with Rauner.
Unions, like everyone else, don’t endorse their enemies. To expect otherwise is ridiculous. It’s like wringing your hands over the fact that the NFIB didn’t endorse Jan Schakowsky.
* And finally…
The court ruled broadly for the plaintiffs, requiring the unions to adopt an “opt in” system to join up and pay dues rather than merely allowing workers to opt out of doing so. “Nobody out there is going to be paying money to a public sector union unless they affirmatively want to,” said Charlotte Garden, a law professor at Seattle University.
AFSCME already has an opt-in system here. From Anders Lindall…
The court case changes nothing in this regard. In Illinois a represented employee has always had to sign a card to join the union; we provide the signed cards to the employer who then deducts dues.
Despite Rauner trying to sow confusion and drive people to his anti-union web site, it’s critically important that every union-represented employee understand they need take no action: Union members have already opted in by signing a card. Fair share payers aren’t opted in and their fees will no longer be deducted.
The only action necessary is if you were fair share and now want to join the union: You should contact your local union leader or steward, or reach out to Council 31, and we’d be more than happy to provide a membership card for you to sign.
*** UPDATE *** Pat Hughes from the Liberty Justice Center vehemently disagrees with AFSCME…
We interpret the Janus ruling as a sweeping win for government workers. The opt in portion of Justice Alito’s opinion means exactly what it says - post Janus, governments should stop collecting union dues of any kind for any member or non-member. It doesn’t matter whether or not someone previously opted in, the conditions upon which that happened - forced agency fees regardless of whether you opted in- made the decision making process for each state employee very different in a pre-Janus world.
Many thanks to Fran Eaton at Illinois Review for the tip.
- Deadbeat Conservative (Blocked yet?) - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 12:02 pm:
Since the USC’s ruling was based in part on the same fake premise illegal political activity, maybe it’s just the new (dis)order of things.
- Anonymous - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 12:02 pm:
To Anders:
It should not matter whether a worker previously signed a membership card or authorized a dues deduction, because the conditions of membership versus non-membership were different. Those who chose to be members were not presented with constitutional options, meaning that consent was not fully informed.
https://www.illinoispolicy.org/illinois-state-workers-who-opted-out-of-union-should-see-pay-hikes-by-july/
- Grandson of Man - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 12:04 pm:
“If government workers don’t have to contribute, maybe this begins a reckoning for the political class of Illinois.”
Union busting and hatred toward opponents.
“We’re not great fans of that symbiosis between one party and the public’s workforce.”
But you’re fans of one person, Rauner, spending tens of millions to buy a political party and have it do his will? More per-capita damage was likely caused by Rauner than anyone in state history. And this was done willfully, to no end for Rauner. Such hypocrisy.
- anon - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 12:11 pm:
I may be off here but this case was based on a 1st Amendment right. Doesn’t the same thing apply to private Unions, HOA fees and other similar circumstances where an individual is required to pay fees but not given a choice how the portion is used to lobby
- Skeptic - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 12:12 pm:
“because the conditions of membership versus non-membership were different.” How so? What part of “I want to belong to AFSCME” changed this week? And btw, pick a nickname.
- Chicago 20 - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 12:18 pm:
“When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”
What we have here is a Supreme Court ruling based on myths and legends to stifle opposition for the sole benefit of the few in the name of “Free Speech”.
- Todd - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 12:18 pm:
Local 150 has already sent a letter to the 50 or so fair share people they have. They have been informed they can join, they can pay fair share or they can be a non-member of the bargaining group. Option number 3 also comes with a fee scheddle of what representation will cost for a grievance Something like $400 for the attorney’s time
Smart unions will adapt and overcome
- wordslinger - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 12:19 pm:
BND, Katrina, Dey — they don’t even try. They just start with their desired conclusion and then backfill with the cow pen leavings.
- My thoughts - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 12:20 pm:
Unions have to file an LM-2 at tax time. Within the LM-2 there are 2 distinct expense sections, one for political expenses/donations and one section for gifts/donations to others. Can union dues be gifted by the union to another group?
- Anon - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 12:22 pm:
Waiting to see if any union will give up its exclusivity over a particular bargaining unit. If they do that, they don’t have to provide services to non-members but it opens the door to competition for members from other unions.
- Anonymous - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 12:31 pm:
@Grandson: the Tribsters don’t care about the motivations of people and groups who agree with them. They’re pure, so anyone who agrees is, too. They delve only into the possible motivations of those who disagree.
- Juice - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 12:33 pm:
Anon at 12:22, if a union gives up its exclusive representative status, the employer is no longer required to bargain with the union, which is why its not really reasonable for the union or the employees to actually want to just give that up.
- Honeybear - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 12:36 pm:
Perfidy perfidy everywhere
Anonymous 12:02
The fully gave consent when they signed the membership card. They were first informed that they do not have to join the union. The card was to join. Here’s the fake news. Members weren’t duped into signing. They knew fully it was the card to join.
Also what a lot of opt out folks think is that they can opt out anonymously. Nope, your coworkers will learn eventually who has become a freeloader, who is putting every one else’s job and benefits at risk. Just like IPI has lists of who is with them and who is not. Just sayin.
I’ve had 5 folks turn in membership cards to become full paying members
The threat to their jobs
Janus prodded them to join
Had Rauner just left us to our natural complacency he could have rolled us quickly
But no state worker trusts Rauner
Why would they do exactly what he wants
In my office the CMS letter caused a stir
But now folks get what he’s tryin to do
Janus failed to gain the beachhead
- A Jack - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 12:39 pm:
@My Thoughts. The fair share portion of the AFSCME does have a provision that members who objected to the fee based on religious beliefs could have that fee paid directly to a charity. Apparently that clause didn’t come up in the arguments.
The fair share provisions are on page 221 of the current contract booklet.
- PAM - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 12:41 pm:
My job classification went into collective bargaining and then was removed. When put in, fair share deductions started without any action on my part. When removed, I asked when that deduction would cease and was told I had to provide a signed request to stop it. Is that Opt-In or Opt-Out?
- A JackTha - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 12:46 pm:
That fair share religious provision also pokes a serious hole in that Catholic Bishop’s comment from yesterday about being forced to support abortions by paying the fair share fee. He obviously spoke without knowledge of what the contract says about fair share fees.
- Phil King - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 12:47 pm:
1. Yes, non members were forced to pay dues. Calling them “fair share fees” doesn’t change that they’re dues.
2. Yes, unions spent fair share money on politics. First, because everything a public union does is politics (effects on budgets, taxes, service levels, etc.). Second, because all money is fungible. Every dollar of fair share fees spent on collective bargaining was a freed up dollar for campaign spending.
Here’s a source for the percentage spent on union dues:
https://www.illinoispolicy.org/illinois-government-worker-unions-spend-millions-on-political-activities-and-lobbying/
Btw, nice “opinion checking” Rich. Weren’t you just complaining about this from BGA?
- My thoughts - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 12:52 pm:
@A jack - Yet some of these groups in this section are political in nature and are being paid by fair share fees.
- Ike - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 12:53 pm:
Phil king -By your logic, business/corporations get tax breaks by the state, so that is political because it affects budgets, taxes, etc. So, shouldn’t they be barred from providing money to political campaigns as well?
- wordslinger - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 12:56 pm:
–Phil king -By your logic, business/corporations get tax breaks by the state, so that is political because it affects budgets, taxes, etc.–
How about private equity hustlers who bankroll incumbents while trying to land public pension fund business?
- Try-4-Truth - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 12:57 pm:
====== 1. Yes, non members were forced to pay dues. Calling them “fair share fees” doesn’t change that they’re dues.
2. Yes, unions spent fair share money on politics. First, because everything a public union does is politics (effects on budgets, taxes, service levels, etc.). Second, because all money is fungible. Every dollar of fair share fees spent on collective bargaining was a freed up dollar for campaign spending.
Here’s a source for the percentage spent on union dues:
https://www.illinoispolicy.org/illinois-government-worker-unions-spend-millions-on-political-activities-and-lobbying/
Btw, nice “opinion checking” Rich. Weren’t you just complaining about this from BGA?======
This post is so completely dishonest I don’t even know where to begin.
- Phil King - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 1:01 pm:
It’s not logic. It’s the official opinion of the final arbiter of Constitutional law in the United States.
Guessing you didn’t read the opinion?
- Phil King - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 1:01 pm:
Not my logic*
- The Way I See It - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 1:03 pm:
With all the links to IPI, guess it’s fair to say John Tillman is back from Washington
- wordslinger - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 1:04 pm:
–It’s not logic. It’s the official opinion of the final arbiter of Constitutional law in the United States.–
LOL, is that intentional humor, the pairing of those two sentences?
- Lord Voldemort - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 1:05 pm:
There’s some serious hair splitting going on here. First the Belleville News-Democrat was basically right when they equated “fair-share” fees with mandatory dues. Depending on the bargaining unit the “fair share” could be as high as regular dues unless a worker objected. And the money went to the same union and (money being fungible) could be used for the same purposes as regular dues.
As far as Jim Dey’s point goes, the case hinged in no small part on the near impossibility of teasing out what was and wasn’t political for a union bargaining with government. Straight-up. Ampaign contributions were out, but after that who knew?
Bottom line is the distinctions being drawn here were important to lawyers but had little practical meaning.
- Ike - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 1:07 pm:
Phil king - got it. IPI has never mislead/lied about anything. They don’t have any agenda and are as pure as fresh snow /s. Maybe think for yourself instead of repeating ideological talking points.
- SaulGoodman - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 1:08 pm:
**It should not matter whether a worker previously signed a membership card or authorized a dues deduction, because the conditions of membership versus non-membership were different. **
Wrong. It does matter. If someone has already said they want to join the union, they were and are a union member.
You can wish it was different, but wishing doesn’t make it so.
- John Deere Green - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 1:08 pm:
BND, Jim Dey, and Katrina and the Troncs write lies about unions and/or Democrats. In other news, water is wet.
- Phil King - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 1:12 pm:
@wordslinger
Picking on typos is a good way to avoid the substance of an argument, where you really have no way of countering.
Abood was perhaps the most clearly wrongly decided case in 50 years. It was a naked political handout, using the power of government to compel speech.
If you can’t understand how private sector businesses lobbying or even private sector collective bargaining are substantively different that’s on you.
Businesses of course already have to earn their money from willing customers. The situations would only be analagous if corporations were able to force you to pay them for 80% of the cost of their product whether or not you wanted to buy it.
- Cornfield Cowboy - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 1:19 pm:
Rich - I would take one small exception with your thought on IEA & AFSCME and their old support of Republicans. In my experience I always found IEA to be more engaging and willing to do the “right” thing by their people and supporting a labor-leaning GOP. Aside from AFSCME’s staunch support of Sen. McCann, it was much more extremely difficult to get the support of AFSCME, even if that GOP legislator was a solid vote for them. Look no further than the 2014 primary with Rauner, Brady, Dillard, Rutherford. IMO, they couldn’t get past an almost blind dislike for the GOP. After all at that time, it is was Quinn who had withheld backpay for three years, shuttered sixty facilities & offices, signed an unconstitutional pension plan and nearly decimated the insurance coverage for Downstate state workers. Had AFSCME, like the others pulled the trigger sooner for Dillard may be - you’re talking about totally different situation. This is what separates AFSCME from say an IEA, IFT, or FOP that may be more prone to look at the merits of a GOP legislator or candidate.
- A Jack - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 1:26 pm:
@My Thoughts. Janus could have opposed fair share based on his religious convictions and there is a contract provision that would have allowed him to give his fee to a charity that he and AFSCME agreed to use. If they didn’t agree the ILRB would have to provide a list and I don’t think the ILRB would have any political organizations in its list.
But Janus argued from a freedom of speech angle that had already been decided forty years ago. If it hadn’t already been decided, the contract could have had an objection of fees based on political beliefs clause. However, the contract didn’t because that issue was decided long ago when they instituted fair share fees. The Supreme Court could have been less disruptive by saying that agency fees objected to based on political beliefs could be diverted for a particular employee to a charity or other organization. But that is not the way they went.
- Deadbeat Conservative (Blocked yet?) - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 1:29 pm:
@ Phil King: =It’s the official opinion of the final arbiter of Constitutional law in the United States.= (John Roberts)
In another case Roberts said that union employees drive on public roads too which qualifies as a political activity.
Agreed that doesn’t stop the same extreme rationalization from being applied arbitrarily and capriciously by the USC in this case.
Also if the union was violating the law by using unauthorized funds for political activity, how much money was it? I didn’t see that in the record.
- Deadbeat Conservative (Blocked yet?) - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 1:31 pm:
–It’s not logic. It’s the official opinion of the final arbiter of Constitutional law in the United States.–
Phil’s fruedian slip is perfect.
- wordslinger - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 1:36 pm:
–If you can’t understand how private sector businesses lobbying or even private sector collective bargaining are substantively different that’s on you.–
So “private sector businesses” don’t lobby and contribute to politicians to extract laws, or regulations, or even government business, that will make them more money?
Learn something new every day. When did that historic change commence?
Just curious, though: When DC Republicans talked openly about how they had to deliver the recent tax cuts for their “donor class,” what did they mean by that?
- SaulGoodman - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 1:39 pm:
** Look no further than the 2014 primary with Rauner, Brady, Dillard, Rutherford. IMO, they couldn’t get past an almost blind dislike for the GOP.**
Huh? AFSCME endorsed Dillard and spent a ton of money on behalf of Dillard in that Primary.
- Honeybear - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 1:41 pm:
Phil King- so Abood, a unanimous decision which successfully kept labor peace for decades was more political than the 5/4 Janus? Wow….lay off the Trump coolaid
- Linus - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 1:42 pm:
To the headline on this post: Yes, a lot of fake news, for sure–intentionally, and/or otherwise.
I actually heard one of Chicago’s TV news programs declare the other night that the Supremes had ruled that union members no longer have to pay union dues. That’s how they reported it, straight-up. I just screamed at the television.
- Lester Holt’s Mustache - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 1:50 pm:
SaulGoodman beat me to it.
Cornfield, your post could not be more incorrect.
- Honeybear - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 1:57 pm:
Cornfield- my endorsing region for Afscme endorsed two republican candidates for the primary. Both got contributions from us. So although you have your experience, I have direct experience with us endorsing Republicans.
- gggg - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 1:59 pm:
Read all of cornfield’s post. He said later in post if AFSCME held their nose sooner for Dillard than he probably would have won. I tend to agree that likely would have happened.
- Carl Draper - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 2:01 pm:
As to the update comment, this decision was only about nonmembers. Reaching the conclusion of the opinion Alito said:
” This procedure violates the First Amendment and cannot continue. Neither an agency fee nor any other payment to the union may be deducted from a nonmember’s wages, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay. By agreeing to pay, nonmembers are waiving their First Amendment rights, and such a waiver cannot be presumed.”
- walker - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 2:02 pm:
“”First, because everything a public union does is politics (effects on budgets, taxes, service levels, etc.).”"
The core argument, which is an extreme change to original and traditional understandings of political speech. Stunning legal interventionism.
- Anonymous - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 2:03 pm:
As to the update comment, this decision was only about nonmembers. Reaching the conclusion of the opinion Alito said:
” This procedure violates the First Amendment and cannot continue. Neither an agency fee nor any other payment to the union may be deducted from a nonmember’s wages, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay. By agreeing to pay, nonmembers are waiving their First Amendment rights, and such a waiver cannot be presumed.”
The opinion focused only on the rights of nonmembers and no part of the ruling affects union dues and collection procedures.
- Carl Draper - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 2:06 pm:
The anonymous post at 2:03 is from me. I forgot to put my name on it.
- SaulGoodman - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 2:07 pm:
Hughes and the IPI crowd are just wrong. There is absolutely nothing in the Janus decision that says union members must opt-in again. It simply says that you cannot automatically make an employee a union member unless they opt out.
Every AFSCME member has signed a card saying that they want to join the union. This means that they have already opted in.
- Skeptic - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 2:09 pm:
“Every dollar of fair share fees spent on collective bargaining was a freed up dollar for campaign spending.” Not necessarily. Let’s say you have an account that can only be used to buy paperclips, and an account that can only be used to buy dog food. Someone pays me to put $5 in the paperclip fund and $5 in the dog food fund. You’re saying that now I can spend $10 on paperclips. That doesn’t make any sense.
- Deadbeat Conservative (Blocked yet?) - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 2:17 pm:
=“Every dollar of fair share fees spent on collective bargaining was a freed up dollar for campaign spending.” Not necessarily.=
The rationlization about money diversion is and idealogical position and unsupported by the record as best I can tell. The court avoids a well-reasoned ruling by simply stating that “everything is political” for public employees and their representatives.
If money had actually been found to be diverted for political use that the union would have gotten dinged for violating existing law and the case would likely have never have gone to the USC.
- Phil King - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 2:28 pm:
No one is claiming money diversion. You don’t need to. It’s about the fungibility of money.
If AFSCME takes $900 a year in fair share fees that are used to pay for “representational activities” that’s $900 in non-agency fees that can now be used for explicit political activities.
If I pay for your utility bill, you can use the money you saved to buy yourself a nice dinner out.
- M - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 2:30 pm:
Word, how is AFSCME different than any other organization that charges a membership fee for providing their service? Lots of organizations give money to politicians. - - Will this ruling affect all organizations/unions or just AFSCME?
- Nick Name - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 2:37 pm:
===That fair share religious provision also pokes a serious hole in that Catholic Bishop’s comment from yesterday about being forced to support abortions by paying the fair share fee. He obviously spoke without knowledge of what the contract says about fair share fees.===
It was a highly irresponsible comment, not least because it was, as I said yesterday, a big middle finger to every member of his flock who belongs to a union.
But second, he’s a licensed attorney, yet he bothered to check neither the AFSCME/State of Illinois contract, nor the state’s Illinois Public Relations Act [5 ILCS 315].
The contract says that fair share fees are to be collected “Pursuant to Section 3(g) of the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act…”
And Section 3(g) of the IPLRA says, fair share fees are to offset “the costs of the collective bargaining process, contract administration, and pursuing matters affecting wages, hours, and other conditions of employment.” However, the agreed amount of the fair share fee “shall not include any fees for contributions related to the election or support of any candidate for political office.”
Illinois statutory law, incorporated by reference in the AFSCME/Illinois contract, specifically prohibits using fair share fees for political purposes.
I’m not a lawyer, but it took me about sixty seconds to look this up. Bishop Paprocki’s tweet yesterday was unprofessional, un-priestly, and blatantly dishonest.
- Lester Holt’s Mustache - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 2:41 pm:
==If AFSCME takes $900 a year in fair share fees that are used to pay for “representational activities” that’s $900 in non-agency fees that can now be used for explicit political activities.==
This childish argument is getting old, you can’t be serious with this repetition. If they take $900 in fair share fees (which is ridiculous, fair share is closer to $300) it’s spent on representation. Other monies are donated for political activities, but you have to choose to do so above and beyond fair share fees. Political monies are not coming from the same pot, no matter how many times you repeat it. Re-posting the same IPI talking points over and over again does not make them true.
If you want to believe the lie, that’s fine, but at least stop cluttering up the post with the same nonsense. Unless you’re being paid to do so, then by all means continue what you’re doing.
- Nick Name - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 2:41 pm:
===No one is claiming money diversion. You don’t need to. It’s about the fungibility of money.
If AFSCME takes $900 a year in fair share fees that are used to pay for “representational activities” that’s $900 in non-agency fees that can now be used for explicit political activities.===
It absolutely does not work that way. The only money that AFSCME may spend on political activity is money VOLUNTARILY donated by members to AFSCME People - AFSCME’s lobbying arm. It’s a separate fund from the funds to which dues and fair share fees go, and money isn’t shifted around between funds.
- Phil King - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 2:44 pm:
==However, the agreed amount of the fair share fee “shall not include any fees for contributions related to the election or support of any candidate for political office.”==
Again, this is literally impossible to accomplish which is why Abood was wrongly decided.
Money is perfectly fungible. If you give an organization money for one purpose, it offsets the money that would have been spent from other sources on that purpose.
For that same reason, any money that goes to Planned Parenthood is taxpayer subsidization of abortion.
It’s basic accounting.
- Lester Holt’s Mustache - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 2:45 pm:
==Bishop Paprocki’s tweet yesterday was unprofessional, un-priestly, and blatantly dishonest.==
Yeah but to be fair, that is true about everything Paprocki says - not just that one tweet. It’s why his congregation has been steadily shrinking since Lucas left.
- Phil King - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 2:54 pm:
@Lester Holt’s Mustache
It’s not a talking point and it’s not ideological.
It’s literally an indisputable mathematical fact:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungibility
If you usually spend $10 on lunch and $10 on dinner, but i buy your lunch today, that means you have $20 for dinner today.
- Anonymous - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 2:59 pm:
=AFSCME and the IEA in particular had a long history of backing Republicans.=
Your one example here really backs up this erroneous claim.
- Nick Name - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 3:06 pm:
===Yeah but to be fair, that is true about everything Paprocki says - not just that one tweet. It’s why his congregation has been steadily shrinking since Lucas left.===
LOL, true. And considering the massive mess Lucas inherited, and how unpopular some of his decisions were in cleaning up that mess, this is quite an achievement on Paprocki’s part.
- JS Mill - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 3:07 pm:
=If you usually spend $10 on lunch and $10 on dinner, but i buy your lunch today, that means you have $20 for dinner today.=
That is a poor argument because it makes assumptions not supported by facts. Therefor your argument is not one about “math facts” but one of supposition.
Based one what you state that person could also have and extra $10 to invest, bank, spend on insurance, or gamble away.
your statement should have read…”that means you COULD have $20 for dinner today.”
That is unless it was spent otherwise or not at all. Yours is not a statement of fact but one of possibility.
For your argument to be true as it relates to fair share, unions, and political expenditures you would have to PROVE that the union or unions violated the law and spent fair share funds on politics, even when considering the fabled fungibility of money. If you cannot prove that they spent it on political activity then yours is an opinion.
Using the IPI to support your opinion only stands to weaken the veracity.
- Nick Name - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 3:08 pm:
===For that same reason, any money that goes to Planned Parenthood is taxpayer subsidization of abortion.
It’s basic accounting.===
You have no idea how federal grants work, do you.
- Nick Name - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 3:25 pm:
===It doesn’t matter whether or not someone previously opted in, the conditions upon which that happened - forced agency fees regardless of whether you opted in- made the decision making process for each state employee very different in a pre-Janus world.===
Yes, that’s exactly it, Liberty Justice Center. In the pre-Janus world, once you signed a union card, you got fitted with ankle shackles and a ball gag was slammed in your mouth, while dark, ominous clouds rolled overhead.
Why do you think state employment is so popular? Why do you think there are long waiting lists? Why do you think merit comp employees line up to get into the bargaining unit?
When legislation passed allowing the PSA1s into the union (Janus was one of these), why do you think they voted overwhelmingly to join?
The Rush/Fox crowd may fall for your propaganda, but most people will not.
- Arthur Andersen - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 3:26 pm:
Another tired old canard that is really worn out in this context: “Money is fungible.”
Not to the people that sign those pesky Federal forms, it ain’t.
PS: Well said, JS MIll.
- wordslinger - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 3:42 pm:
LOL, that’s right PK, nothing says “undisputable, mathematical fact” like a wiki link.
You’re on a roll today.
- Dublin - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 3:43 pm:
==If you usually spend $10 on lunch and $10 on dinner, but i buy your lunch today, that means you have $20 for dinner today.==
No, it doesn’t. It means I have $20 for my lunch tomorrow because I can only spend that money on lunch, per the law. I can’t take it and spend it on my dinner because that would be illegal.
I’m hungry now.
- Skeptic - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 3:44 pm:
==If you usually spend $10 on lunch and $10 on dinner, but i buy your lunch today, that means you have $20 for dinner today.== And since money is fungible, that $10 you didn’t spend today I can spend tomorrow, right?
- 17% Solution - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 3:50 pm:
Is fungible the Pee Wee Herman word of the day? Everybody scream when you hear fungible.
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Monday, Jul 2, 18 @ 11:49 am:
The money isn’t fungible. It would only be fungible if all the money went in a big pile of money and came out of that same big pile of money. Because of federal law that can’t happen.
Fair share fees can only go into the fair share fee pile and only only be spent on negotiations, contract enforcement, defending the worker’s job etc.
PAC money is the second pile of money and can only be spent on supporting politicians or educating voters in bills, etc.
If the union is short one month on one pile or another, it can’t borrow from one pile to make up the shortage in the other.
Why is this concept so hard, Phil King, and Lord Voldemort?