2016 USA Presidential election thread I: The warm-up

[dasva]

This union issue is pretty simple. It's about a person's right to choose. A person should have the right to choose whether to join a union or not. They should have the right to choose whether they support a union or not. If they won't join and support the union, then they are not entitled to benefit from anything the union does. That means they have to negotiate their own contract, and they don't get a union representative on their side if the bosses try to fire or discipline them. That's their risk to take, if they so choose. They'd be stupid not to join the union, but it is their right.

The interesting about this when you offer people choices like this where it's clear they have the freedom the chose but have to face the very real consequences of those choices if they sit down and think about it they often will find the consequences are more painful. Like NH doesn't require auto insurance but the vast majority still get it because having to pony up the costs of an accident is more painful than an insurance premium. And if that doesn't convince them well experience is a great teacher.

[Talint]

While I agree Bernie supporters play a very dangerous game of chicken by not voting for Hillary in the general, it is the very attitude of "You're either with us or you're against us" that is going to make them stay at home in the first place.

[Andalusian girls]

The fees are only for the costs of grievance mediation and bargaining (that non-union members benefit from). They cannot be used for advocating for positions or whatever nonsense you are talking about.

the nonsense i'm talking about is the statute the lead plaintiff (an elementary school teacher for 28 years) filed against requiring mandatory fees from non-union members for "the cost of lobbying activities", in addition to less overtly political collective bargaining activities, in other words the nonsense is the heart of the case to which you appear entirely ignorant. and if you don't believe teacher's unions are actively advocating positions on merit pay, class size, seniority protection, and other politically charged issues within which there is a divergence of opinions both among the public and among teachers, well.

there is no constitutional right for civil institutions to compel individuals who do not support them to join and/or financially support the institution. if unions cannot convince the individual of their net benefit they should not be allowed to use the aggregated power of government to compel submission, if they can then the free association of labor should likewise in no way be infringed upon.

[Marootsoobutsu]

While I agree Bernie supporters play a very dangerous game of chicken by not voting for Hillary in the general, it is the very attitude of "You're either with us or you're against us" that is going to make them stay at home in the first place.

It's not an attitude of it-- it's a reality of it. We're in a binary country: Either a Republican will win, or a Democrat will win. Your choice is not between best and nothing; it's between more good and less good (or, if you want, more bad and less bad). If you think Bernie is great, you should support Hillary, because she is the stepping stone to getting to Bernie's policies. I don't care if she supports all of your views or not-- she supports more of them than literally any Republican does. And it doesn't matter if the one thing you care most about is something you oppose Hillary on-- she's *STILL* the stepping stone to getting your position across in the next 4-40 years, because the progressive movement will likely incorporate that position in time.

Y'all are playing like this election is all-in. It's not. It's just another hand at the table, and if you don't manage your chips, you will lose position.


Archie: The issue is that any position taken by an government union is inherently political. Teacher pay, benefits, and job security are, when dealing with public schools, inherently political questions. They are paid by taxes, and whether you support the union positions or not, it's a political question in a way that non-governmental unions are not.

[Inshiya]

This union issue is pretty simple. It's about a person's right to choose. A person should have the right to choose whether to join a union or not. They should have the right to choose whether they support a union or not. If they won't join and support the union, then they are not entitled to benefit from anything the union does. That means they have to negotiate their own contract, and they don't get a union representative on their side if the bosses try to fire or discipline them. That's their risk to take, if they so choose. They'd be stupid not to join the union, but it is their right.

I've seen some situations where this has happened and it definitely hurt and made things hella worse when there were union workers and non-union workers. Having the non-union workers just fucks the entire collective bargaining system as well.

[Blubbartron]

It's not an attitude of it-- it's a reality of it. We're in a binary country: Either a Republican will win, or a Democrat will win. Your choice is not between best and nothing; it's between more good and less good (or, if you want, more bad and less bad). If you think Bernie is great, you should support Hillary, because she is the stepping stone to getting to Bernie's policies. I don't care if she supports all of your views or not-- she supports more of them than literally any Republican does. And it doesn't matter if the one thing you care most about is something you oppose Hillary on-- she's *STILL* the stepping stone to getting your position across in the next 4-40 years, because the progressive movement will likely incorporate that position in time.

It's actually not quite true that none of the people on the Republican side have policies like Bernie's. Trump's economic and trade policies are remarkably similar to Bernie's. What little Trump has said in regards to foreign policy is also more similar to Bernie than Hillary's is. Trump is such a wildcard that it becomes a lot more complicated than simply stating "Hillary is slightly less progressive than Bernie." A person's individual priorities will really determine if they swing from Bernie to Trump or Hillary if that's the way it plays out.

[kisada]

It's not an attitude of it-- it's a reality of it. We're in a binary country: Either a Republican will win, or a Democrat will win. Your choice is not between best and nothing; it's between more good and less good (or, if you want, more bad and less bad). If you think Bernie is great, you should support Hillary, because she is the stepping stone to getting to Bernie's policies. I don't care if she supports all of your views or not-- she supports more of them than literally any Republican does. And it doesn't matter if the one thing you care most about is something you oppose Hillary on-- she's *STILL* the stepping stone to getting your position across in the next 4-40 years, because the progressive movement will likely incorporate that position in time.

Y'all are playing like this election is all-in. It's not. It's just another hand at the table, and if you don't manage your chips, you will lose position.


Archie: The issue is that any position taken by an government union is inherently political. Teacher pay, benefits, and job security are, when dealing with public schools, inherently political questions. They are paid by taxes, and whether you support the union positions or not, it's a political question in a way that non-governmental unions are not.

pretty much this. i think the thing that both amazes and disgusts me about a lot of bernie guys (some in this thread) is that they cannot, for the life of them, comprehend the above.

[notorious bum]

The Clinton arguments in here are a-historical, that's the only way one can vehemently support and play the hypothetical game of how much better she is going to do in the White House.

[Salodin]

Plus teacher unions bargain to set the teachers salary, for all teachers. Just by being a teacher you are benefited by the union, even if you don't join. Which then begs the question, why do you get to benefit from their lobbying if you aren't paying dues?

[archibaldcrane]

the nonsense i'm talking about is the statute the lead plaintiff (an elementary school teacher for 28 years) filed against requiring mandatory fees from non-union members for "the cost of lobbying activities", in addition to less overtly political collective bargaining activities, in other words the nonsense is the heart of the case to which you appear entirely ignorant. and if you don't believe teacher's unions are actively advocating positions on merit pay, class size, seniority protection, and other politically charged issues within which there is a divergence of opinions both among the public and among teachers, well.

there is no constitutional right for civil institutions to compel individuals who do not support them to join and/or financially support the institution. if unions cannot convince the individual of their net benefit they should not be allowed to use the aggregated power of government to compel submission, if they can then the free association of labor should likewise in no way be infringed upon.

I was just going off this, from SCOTUSBLOG

The Court had heard the Friedrichs case on January 11 and, from all appearances then, it seemed to be on its way toward a five-to-four decision to declare that it would be unconstitutional for unions representing government employees to charge fees to workers they represent but who are not among its members, even when the fees cover the costs of normal union bargaining over working conditions, not lobbying or outright political advocacy.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/03/op...c-unions-fees/

If I'm missing something important (which is entirely possible), feel free to point me in another direction.

[notorious bum]

And let's be real, besides me and a few other poor mofos on here, hardly anyone here will be directly affected by disastrous policies that kick the can down the street or boot that shit into oblivion as the economy nosedives (neither candidate is going to affect it much in the short-term, but lol @ continuing to hand blank checks out to homicidal bankers).

[Fiye]

Slightly is an understatement. If you want continued social progress with our current economic status quo feel free to vote for Hillary. Telling me to vote for Hillary because she's the presumed nominee would've been like telling me to vote Jeb! because he was the presumed nominee in 2015.

You're telling me to fucking vote hillary and have bernie step down when she didn't even step down in the primary caucus until July.
(Video starts at 20:36)


We don't make change by going with the presumed nominee. We make change by fighting it and hopefully convincing that person that their ideals should closely match ours. My goal is to have Bernie Sanders as president, but second place is causing enough of a stir that the party needs to adopt his positions if there's any hope of winning a general.

And I feel safe to say that we'll at least get second place.

[dasva]

Plus teacher unions bargain to set the teachers salary, for all teachers. Just by being a teacher you are benefited by the union, even if you don't join. Which then begs the question, why do you get to benefit from their lobbying if you aren't paying dues?

Or maybe it begs the question why are the bargaining for teachers that don't want a part of it? To feel justified in demanding the protection money... er I mean dues after?

[Blubbartron]

Or maybe it begs the question why are the bargaining for teachers that don't want a part of it? To feel justified in demanding the protection money... er I mean dues after?

This. You don't get to do something out of altruism or because you feel it's ethically necessary and then demand compensation for it. It's ironically similar to the white knights who are super nice to women and then get pissed off when it doesn't get them sex.

[Niiro]

..........because if you have a bunch of union teachers demanding better pay and a bunch of non-union teachers willing to work for less it creates a bit of a problem for the union trying to negotiate better terms.

[Rooney]

Slightly is an understatement. If you want continued social progress with our current economic status quo feel free to vote for Hillary. Telling me to vote for Hillary because she's the presumed nominee would've been like telling me to vote Jeb! because he was the presumed nominee in 2015.

You're telling me to fucking vote hillary and have bernie step down when she didn't even step down in the primary caucus until July.
(Video starts at 20:36)

We don't make change by going with the presumed nominee. We make change by fighting it and hopefully convincing that person that their ideals should closely match ours. My goal is to have Bernie Sanders as president, but second place is causing enough of a stir that the party needs to adopt his positions if there's any hope of winning a general.

And I feel safe to say that we'll at least get second place.

This is the entire point of the primaries: to get a nominee that represents the broadest portion of the electorate as you can. What you still don't seem to get is that it doesn't matter if the nominee is Bernie or Hillary. Whichever camp wins will need the other camp's members to suck it up and vote for the nominee in the general to win. Otherwise there's a very real chance that not voting/voting 3rd party/write-in will put someone like Trump/Cruz in the presidency. Not only will you not get what you want, you'll probably lose a lot of ground on several issues.

[notorious bum]

Jim Dorsey ‏@jamezdhawaii 21h21 hours ago

News in CA just reported that there are over 500,000 new registered voters in the state between the ages of 18-25.

https://twitter.com/jamezdhawaii/sta...88463573995520

[Salodin]

..........because if you have a bunch of union teachers demanding better pay and a bunch of non-union teachers willing to work for less it creates a bit of a problem for the union trying to negotiate better terms.

Um, this. How can you keep the best teachers in education if schools can get away with paying for teachers half as good for half the cost. That only hurts us, not help.

These are the same people saying we need better education but don't want to pay the teachers for it lol. You can't encourage the best talent to stick around if you're going to replace them with people who are cheaper and less effective, who won't fight back because they can't afford to.

[dasva]

I was just going off this, from SCOTUSBLOG

If I'm missing something important (which is entirely possible), feel free to point me in another direction.

If you click the link on that page to the general page for the case it has

Issue: (1) Whether Abood v. Detroit Board of Education should be overruled and public-sector “agency shop” arrangements invalidated under the First Amendment; and (2) whether it violates the First Amendment to require that public employees affirmatively object to subsidizing nonchargeable speech by public-sector unions, rather than requiring that employees affirmatively consent to subsidizing such speech.

If you check the Abood v. Detroit Board of Education which admittedly being old is less concisely documented basically says they were requiring non-union members to pay full dues which obviously doesn't all go to collective bargaining. Since then there have been other rulings that have provided ways for non-members to opt out of things not germane to union objectives but that goes to the 2nd point... you aren't asked if you want to donate money to these purely political parts. You instead have to go thru some process to stop them. How difficult that is seems to vary from what I've read and sometimes results in retaliatory action

[Melena]

Um, this. How can you keep the best teachers in education if schools can get away with paying for teachers half as good for half the cost. That only hurts us, not help.

These are the same people saying we need better education but don't want to pay the teachers for it lol. You can't encourage the best talent to stick around if you're going to replace them with people who are cheaper and less effective, who won't fight back because they can't afford to.

Well public opinion doesn't help. There are a lot of people out there who think teachers only work 7-4pm every day and get 3 months off every summer paid.