Missouri Voters Overturn Right-To-Work

[Chris]

This came to light a couple of days ago, and in Missouri yet! It shows how the times are definitely changing.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0b15abaa751fb

I'm not sure American conservatives understand just how rapidly and dramatically pro-labor public attitudes have shifted in recent years since the last recession. Consider the Occupy movement, the Fight for 15 movement, the strikingly prominent Bernie Sanders presidential campaign of 2016, the wave of wildcat teacher strikes earlier this year (which mostly took place in politically conservatives states that voted for Trump, incidentally). In that context, is it really surprising that the voters of Missouri voted 2 to 1 to overturn a major restriction on unions? The Supreme Court can rule what they want, but the more they rule against labor in this social environment, the more they will only prove their institution undemocratic in nature and themselves to be what they are: corrupt cronies of the rather unpopular corporate world who deserve to be replaced and to have their institution democratized (i.e. rendered elected, not appointed) and to have their "right" of judicial review abolished until such time.

And the evidence for this great change is a Missouri referendum? Overgeneralize much.

[Chris]

Right to Work Frequently-Asked Questions

What is the Right to Work principle?

The Right to Work principle–the guiding concept of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation–affirms the right of every American to work for a living without being compelled to belong to a union. Compulsory unionism in any form–"union," "closed," or "agency" shop–is a contradiction of the Right to Work principle and the fundamental human right that the principle represents. The National Right to Work Committee advocates that every individual must have the right, but must not be compelled, to join a labor union. The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation assists employees who are victimized because of their assertion of that principle....

What is a Right to Work law?

A Right to Work law guarantees that no person can be compelled, as a condition of employment, to join or not to join, nor to pay dues to a labor union....

SO the left is against the individual right to choose and for compulsory joining union or paying dues.

[nathanbforrest45]

Right to Work Frequently-Asked Questions




SO the left is against the individual right to choose and for compulsory joining union or paying dues.

When I worked for Yellow Freight Systems in Jacksonville in the late 70's Florida was a Right to Work State. Yellow was a union shop but I didn't have to join the union. If I didn't pay dues I wasn't in the union. However, I did have to pay "Hiring Hall Fee's" which were the same amount as union dues but with no representation. I didn't care about that point since I never felt that I needed representation, I could always walk into the terminal managers office and make my case. So, this isn't about collecting dues its about having control over the membership and keeping everybody in line.

[MisterVeritis]

I'm not sure American conservatives understand just how rapidly and dramatically pro-labor public attitudes have shifted in recent years since the last recession. Consider the Occupy movement, the Fight for 15 movement, the strikingly prominent Bernie Sanders presidential campaign of 2016, the wave of wildcat teacher strikes earlier this year (which mostly took place in politically conservatives states that voted for Trump, incidentally). In that context, is it really surprising that the voters of Missouri voted 2 to 1 to overturn a major restriction on unions? The Supreme Court can rule what they want, but the more they rule against labor in this social environment, the more they will only prove their institution undemocratic in nature and themselves to be what they are: corrupt cronies of the rather unpopular corporate world who deserve to be replaced and to have their institution democratized (i.e. rendered elected, not appointed) and to have their "right" of judicial review abolished until such time.

The courts are not democratic in nature by design.

[IMPress Polly]

"Right to work" laws are not about the right to jobs or else the conservatives who support them would support public works programs. They are about de-funding unions by promoting the atomization of the workforce at the expense of the collective well-being thereof.

[Dr. Who]

I'm not sure American conservatives understand just how rapidly and dramatically pro-labor public attitudes have shifted in recent years since the last recession. Consider the Occupy movement, the Fight for 15 movement, the strikingly prominent Bernie Sanders presidential campaign of 2016, the wave of wildcat teacher strikes earlier this year (which mostly took place in politically conservatives states that voted for Trump, incidentally). In that context, is it really surprising that the voters of Missouri voted 2 to 1 to overturn a major restriction on unions? The Supreme Court can rule what they want, but the more they rule against labor in this social environment, the more they will only prove their institution undemocratic in nature and themselves to be what they are: corrupt cronies of the rather unpopular corporate world who deserve to be replaced and to have their institution democratized (i.e. rendered elected, not appointed) and to have their "right" of judicial review abolished until such time.

As imperfect as the appointment system is, an elected judiciary can be equally problematic and even more susceptible to undue influence since they then often tailor their rulings to please their electors. In the case of SCOTUS, you could then see the entire composition of the Court changing with every federal election and a rush to have prior rulings overturned by the new court. In all likelihood, the political bias of the Court would reflect the party in power. While that can happen to a degree under the appointment system, it is rare that any party has the ability to stack the Court unless there are multiple judges retiring from the bench at one time. The advantage of the appointment system is that once appointed, the judge cannot be removed for ruling impartially i.e. possibly against his or her political benefactors. A judge doing the same under an electoral system would be risking retaliation during the next election.

Additionally, from a practical perspective, given that there are 9 Supreme Court justices, they would either have to be added to the ballot at every presidential election or have a completely separate election cycle. Of all of the people running for election, they would be the least known to voters, so such elections would involve massive national election campaigns which would be incredibly expensive and for the majority of the people, command little interest.

Incidentally, in most cases that I have been involved with where an out of state defendant (insured person or company) is being sued in a state court, we try to have the case moved to a federal court, simply because of the improbability of a fair trial with an elected judge, many of whom are more concerned with getting re-elected than with running an impartial court.

[Chris]

"Right to work" laws are not about the right to jobs or else the conservatives who support them would support public works programs. They are about de-funding unions by promoting the atomization of the workforce at the expense of the collective well-being thereof.

No, they are about workers having the right to choose to join unions or pay union dues.

The government should not be picking sides. Doing so is a form of cronyism.

When the US turns commie we'll tak about the collective.

[IMPress Polly]

Dr. Who wrote:
As imperfect as the appointment system is, an elected judiciary can be equally problematic and even more susceptible to undue influence since they then often tailor their rulings to please their electors. In the case of SCOTUS, you could then see the entire composition of the Court changing with every federal election and a rush to have prior rulings overturned by the new court. In all likelihood, the political bias of the Court would reflect the party in power. While that can happen to a degree under the appointment system, it is rare that any party has the ability to stack the Court unless there are multiple judges retiring from the bench at one time. The advantage of the appointment system is that once appointed, the judge cannot be removed for ruling impartially i.e. possibly against his or her political benefactors. A judge doing the same under an electoral system would be risking retaliation during the next election.

You must live in a bubble if you believe that the Supreme Court rules on the constitutional merits of anything in a non-political way. The judicial system was political from the outset, and judicial review opposed by the immense majority of the American population at the outset of the then-unpopular U.S. Constitution's enactment because the public knew full well that the essential purpose of an empowered court system was to one-sidedly benefit creditors; to collect debts (almost everyone was hopelessly indebted) and imprison debtors who could not pay.

The bolded arguments against a democratically-elected court system are striking to me. Is it not better for the politics of the highest court in the land to reflect those of the party currently in power at any given juncture than those of the party that has been perhaps voted out of power? Judges ruling against the public will would face retaliation in the next election? Good!! Isn't such accountability to the people the whole point of having a democratic political system in the first place?!

The type of logic you're throwing out here is akin to saying that absolute monarchs and military dictators govern without political bias because they can't be held accountable to voters, as if democracy, the masses themselves, were the source of all corruption. The source of corruption, in my view of it, is non-accountability.

[Chris]

You must live in a bubble if you believe that the Supreme Court rules on the constitutional merits of anything in a non-political way. The judicial system was political from the outset, and judicial review opposed by the immense majority of the American population at the outset of the then-unpopular U.S. Constitution's enactment because the public knew full well that the essential purpose of an empowered court system was to one-sidedly benefit creditors; to collect debts (almost everyone was hopelessly indebted) and imprison debtors who could not pay.

The bolded arguments against a democratically-elected court system are striking to me. Is it not better for the politics of the highest court in the land to reflect those of the party currently in power at any given juncture than those of the party that has been perhaps voted out of power? Judges ruling against the public will would face retaliation in the next election? Good!! Isn't such accountability to the people the whole point of having a democratic political system in the first place?!

The type of logic you're throwing out here is akin to saying that absolute monarchs and military dictators govern without political bias because they can't be held accountable to voters, as if democracy, the masses themselves, were the source of all corruption. The source of corruption, in my view of it, is non-accountability.

Electing judges would not be political? LOL.


Even monarchs are accountable to the people, ultimately.

[IMPress Polly]

Chris wrote:
Electing judges would not be political? LOL.

I said nothing of the kind. "LOL."

Electing them would simply acknowledge the reality that most people already know: that the court system is intrinsically political. Best then that it be accountable rather than not!

Even monarchs are accountable to the people, ultimately.

While I would love to hold certain Supreme Court justices 'accountable' in the sort of way you're suggesting, but I think that a process that makes for the peaceful transfer of power would be more desirable.