Unions, Anarchy and the Court

February 27, 2018

The Supreme Court, the one in Washington, heard argument Monday in Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. The case challenged whether unions, elected by a majority of the workers as their bargaining agent, can charge what are called agency fees, that is, fees for the work they do negotiating for better wages and working conditions. The argument against the unions is that the unions might advocate things that some workers disagree with and, therefore, worker dues are being used in a way that violates their freedom of speech.

The question is how far the Court majority is likely to take us toward anarchy. But first, three short paragraphs of explanation of the terms involved. Unions are selected in a carefully supervised process to be the exclusive bargaining agent for the workers in the shop. The union officers are elected in turn by the membership. The officers are always on those electoral hooks. The union can be decertified if people conclude that the workers no longer support that choice. And the officers can be defeated at the next election.

Unions are exclusive bargaining agents because a plurality of competing unions can’t represent the workers as effectively. Employers could just deal with compliant unions and leave the others out on strike. The responsibility to share the cost of the bargaining unit is necessary because without it, workers can be “free riders,” getting the benefits of their unions’ efforts while refusing to pay for it. That would undermine the unions’ ability to do their work.

From the perspective of the challengers to the part of union dues that supports collective bargaining and handling of grievances, those expenses are as political as lobbying and candidate support. For them, elections don’t matter, just whether union leaders say and act in ways that individual workers dislike. Their argument is that they shouldn’t have to pay.

So now I want to talk about the next case. Obviously many people object to the use of their tax dollars by President Trump to say things that they believe are horrendous, not to mention all the things he does that many taxpayers object to. Can they demand freedom from paying for his press officers and for any portion of his salary which is used for the purpose of making speeches, twits or statements. The logic is similar. The question is how far this union case can take us toward anarchy?

The same argument can be extended to the statements of whichever party opposes their own beliefs. Can taxpayers sue to defund all the press offices, and all the speechwriters, and the congressional TV studio?

There are problems with taxpayer suits. The Supreme Court might bar the door, but the principle is the same. And there are organizations and other parties who could probably make arguments that they are more injured than an ordinary taxpayer.

The same issues come up on the state and local levels too.

We might also raise the same questions about the Court itself. It is taking American law in directions many Americans strongly disagree with. There are costs involved in preparing opinions and publishing them. Do they also violate taxpayers’ First Amendment rights?

The Founders believed that elections solved the speech problem. But the Court views it differently. For the Court, corporations have First Amendment rights to speak for a majority of their boards, with the funds of their consumers. The dissenting board members, shareholders and purchasers, however, have no right to object to the use to which their funds are put.  Unions, by contrast, can’t speak for a majority of their members, despite the fact that they have available to them an electoral process that consumers don’t.

The logic of where the Court appears to be going is not law and order. Instead it is about anarchy. There is no law or government if each of us is a law unto ourselves, including those uses of speech that are necessary to the various jobs that officials and representatives have. There are anarchists in this country, and the gun owning, self-proclaimed “sovereign citizens,” are among them. The Republican Party, however, is anything but. Their party stands for social control. The issue for them is not authority itself but who controls what. Anarchy is anathema to majorities of both major parties and inconsistent with democratic government. But the Court may not understand the connection and the implications of what they are doing.

Advertisements

Guns and Vegas

October 10, 2017

Why, after Vegas, Sandy Hook and other mass killings of decent men, women and children, is it so hard to get real gun control?

The NRA was  an association of hunters and sportsman, reasonable and trustworthy neighbors. Now the NRA, its leaders and vocal supporters argue Americans should have the right to buy any kind of firearm from tanks and machine guns to silencers. Where did that come from?

A good bet might be manufacturers. Despite the praise Republicans like to lavish on the free market, too many businesses look at profits before safety, honor or humanity. That can make life miserable without

But part of their audience is quite radical, some of which goes back to the Civil War. President Andrew Johnson sent General Carl Schurz to report on conditions in the South following the War. Schurz reported that southern slave-owners continued riding patrol to force the former slaves back to their plantations. Those informal groups gradually coalesced into organizations that fought, killed and intimidated African-Americans and their white supporters in order to regain white control of the former Confederate States. In such notorious events as the Colfax Massacre, many were killed in order to return Colfax County to white slaveowner control. Those groups eventually became the KKK and similar organizations which terrorized African-Americans in the former Confederacy and border states for a century. The Klan never really disappeared despite passage of the Civil Rights Laws. The connection between the battle to keep the South white, the flag of the Confederacy and the sight of guns is no accident. Trump’s campaign and victory re-invigorated these white supremacists, and the Alt-Wrong.

They want tanks, machine guns and other massively destructive weapons to prevent tyranny, by which they mean federal tyranny, so they need the capacity to fight the federal government.[1] One problem of course is that’s another civil war. Another is that their definition of tyranny isn’t one most of us would accept. Many believe that tyranny is here.

That radical segment of gun-owners are not patriots. They are not supporters of government of, by and for the people that we created in 1787 and improved by Amendment after the Civil War. Their ideal is government by white supremacists to the exclusion of everyone else. And that’s aimed at most of us – those of us whose views are more welcoming, and those who don’t satisfy the supremacists’ view of Christianity. They’re also aimed at resolving political disputes by taking the law into their own hands.[2] Politically, if we don’t protect each other, who will protect those of us who remain? This political and cultural crisis is existential. The America most of us admire and care about is an America they despise and want to conquer. That’s what tanks and machine guns are for.

The radicals’ resistance to sharing America with the rest of us leads to armed rebellions, like those of Cliven Bundy and his supporters, or self-styled “sovereign citizens” who routinely refuse to respect the law. There is nothing peace-loving or law-abiding about the radicals.

The mood of the country has been changing, witness the removal of many Confederate flags and monuments. But that stimulates the haters. They’re losing control and they hate that, and us. Reasonable and trustworthy gun owners would do better to distance themselves from the radicals who have taken a prominent and threatening role in the debate over weapons.

— This commentary was broadcast on WAMC Northeast Report, October 10, 2017.

[1] One NRA member from Texas told an NPR reporter, “As far as I’m concerned, if you can afford to buy a tank, you should be able to buy a tank.” He explained: “the Second Amendment was put in not to hunt, not to go plink at cans, not to shoot at targets. If and when tyranny tries to take over our country, we can fight it.” A recent NRA President, Jim Porter wanted people to be “ready to fight tyranny.” When he was NRA vice-president, Porter told an audience that “We got the pads put on, we got our helmets strapped on, we’re cinched up, we’re ready to fight, we’re out there fighting every day.”

[2] NPR’s Wade Goodwyn reported that speakers at a recent NRA convention “emphasized their belief that there are two Americas: the righteousness of the right and the decadence of the left.” In other words, one of the strands of fanaticism behind the NRA is political – not just that gun rights are political, but that the purpose of having gun rights is political, to change the society from one they dislike to one they like.


%d bloggers like this: