Fundamental transformation, aided by robed philosopher kings whose word is law. Like Gods!
But hey, stop pushing those Levin liberty amendments, Hobbity Visigoths. Or bringing up federalism or amendment conventions. Those are just kooky throwback Klansman wetdreams, the very terms larded with unhelpful historical baggage — and worse, they are likely to frighten off the moderates and independents that, starting with McCain’s victory and culminating in the Romney presidency, keep us in power, and the free market free and thriving!
Do unions exist for the benefit of workers, or do workers exist for the benefit of unions? A judge in Lake County, Ind., ruled recently that it is the latter. Judge John Sedia said in a Sept. 5, 2013, ruling that his state’s right-to-work law, which prevents workers from being forced to join a union or pay dues to one as a condition of employment, violates a section in the state that bars the delivery of services “without just compensation.” The judge’s thinking went like this: Union contracts require them to represent all employees in a workplace. A worker not paying dues is stealing from the union.
It’s an absurd argument. What the judge ignored was the fact that it is the unions that demand their contracts with management cover all workers. Nothing forces them to make that demand. Courts have long recognized the validity of “members-only” contracts in which unions only represent people who voluntarily join. Unions don’t like such contracts because they generate less dues money. Consider Judge Sedia’s ruling from the perspective of an ordinary wage earner: That person gets a job only to find out he is obligated to support the company’s union, a long-standing arrangement the worker never had an opportunity to vote on in the first place.
For whatever reason, he balks because he can negotiate his own compensation, or he doesn’t the like the union’s favored political candidates and causes. Maybe he thinks the union is in bed with management. Then he discovers from a friend — because the union certainly didn’t tell him — that he has the right to quit the union. After going through all of the hassle to do this, a judge says, no, you can’t do that because the union has a right to your money. Why? Because they demanded that in their contract with management.The Indiana case isn’t over because the attorney general will appeal the decision to the state supreme court. This is worth watching because it has national implications. Should the union’s legal argument prevail, expect it to become one of the main tools Big Labor uses to push back against the right- to-work campaign.
[…]
The Indiana AG reportedly may argue that Judge Sedia was wrong because the state constitution provision he cited applies to individuals, rather than unions. The state would be better off highlighting that the only people insisting unions have to represent all workers are the unions themselves. After all, guaranteeing individuals this choice is the whole point of right-to-work laws.
When activist courts join the progressive movement — and rule in violation of the law and common sense — there is really no recourse at present to refute them, save hoping some higher court disagrees. But when even the highest court in the land can treat a tax like Shroedinger’s cat, we need, as a free people, a way to express our unwillingness to let one citizen have the ultimate say for how the rest of us must live, be it enslaved to unions or enslaved to the federal government.
And the only way to do that is to create a check on the (implied) power of judicial review such that 300 million citizens aren’t in essence ruled by a single vote cast for reasons of hoping to create the appearance of comity, and for the benefit of a narcissist’s “legacy.”
Judge Sedia’s ruling is as elegant as anything John Roberts has ever produced I think
How about we put a limit on stare decisis from SCOTUS, based on the vote taken (secret ballot and the results not given until all votes are cast, THEN write the bloody opinions!).
5-4 only good for five years (at least one Presidential election)
6-3 good for 10
7-2 good for 20
8-1 gets you 40
Unanimous gets you “the lifespan of all sitting justices plus 25 years” (it expires 25 years after the last judge of the 9 dies off)
After those deadlines, they are removed from the books, and may not be cited by any courts as standing precedent.
Drumwaster, I’d be happy if the legal term were changed to stare decisis per fatuis.
Hey judge, how about if they outlaw contracts under which the unions represent all employees? Will that settle your delicate stomach?
Darth, what’s the Latin for, “all sound and fury, signifying nothing”?
Wouldn’t that be ‘fatuitas’ (foolishness)? (I had to look it up, so YMMV)
Drumwaster, I was going for adding “by idiots (fatuus)” and relying on decades-old memories of vocabulary and cases.
According to Google, McGehee, it’s omnem sonum excitantis, nihil significans, according to me it’s infestationem per Potomac in toto
What the judge (deliberately) refuses grasp is that Right To Work laws allow the individual to refuse to give up his own right to negotiate pay and benefits to the union. Stated differently, the individual is not required to contract with the union to represent him. That interaction between union and individual is separate and distinct from the contract between company and union, which is separate and distinct from the contract between individual and company. The fact that changes to one relationship may affect the others is irrelevant. In fact, nothing precludes the Union from continuing to represent its members with the company.
The best argument would be that employees are required to be union members only until the end of the present contract, but even that’s suspect for new employees who weren’t members at the time of the contract negotiation.
Bad enough the government can help itself to part of your paycheck at the point of a gun.
But a union helping itself to part of your paycheck at the point of the government gun it just bought with that part of your paycheck it helped itself to?
It seems to me that all the slave states are north of the Mason-Dixon line these days.
I suppose I can hope that the proggies invest several tens of millions of their precious dollars in this legal fight, only to have it laughed out of court on appeal.
Fixed that for you.
– Actually this may become the biggest Labor Union case/issue before its all over. Storm clouds in Utopia.
– Dances with wolves; The Marxists and the Communists – can’t you just feel the love.
– Apparently the WH Gestoppo has decided the Labor Unions will be on the list of groups destined for reeducation camps.
– Equally apparent, senality must be one of those “things” outlawed in the motherland.
– At what point will some good soul finally pack the old duffer off to his room at the rest home?
I think someone should go and paint Judge Sedia’s house unsolicited, and then send him the bill for it. Any color will do. I hear he’s partial to black polka dots over light pink.
Or maybe even red with little yellow splatters.
Senator McCain responded, “I forget, what comes after three of a kind?”