I hope we get LeBron or Kawhi at least

TenuredVulture wrote:Optimistically, gorsuch is going, but he looks terrible.

Huh?

wonder where doug jones will stand on this

pacino wrote:he just spells out what they all just whisper

and how dumb does he think we are? he thinks rank and file vote the way their union says? if they did we wouldn't have seen the upsets in NYC or in Pittsburgh or his own fucking win

I'll have him know the unions in my area are endorsing my opponent, a Republican, despite my well-documented for unions.

It's really hard not to hate everything right now.

Wolfgang622 wrote:

pacino wrote:he just spells out what they all just whisper

and how dumb does he think we are? he thinks rank and file vote the way their union says? if they did we wouldn't have seen the upsets in NYC or in Pittsburgh or his own #$!&@ win

I'll have him know the unions in my area are endorsing my opponent, a Republican, despite my well-documented for unions.

It's really hard not to hate everything right now.

it's really pathetic. Please email the guy I said

Wolfgang622 wrote:

pacino wrote:he just spells out what they all just whisper

and how dumb does he think we are? he thinks rank and file vote the way their union says? if they did we wouldn't have seen the upsets in NYC or in Pittsburgh or his own fucking win

I'll have him know the unions in my area are endorsing my opponent, a Republican, despite my well-documented for unions.

It's really hard not to hate everything right now.

wait, what, why?

Any chance Kennedy comes out and says Pysch in a few days.

heyeaglefn wrote:Any chance Kennedy comes out and says Pysch in a few days.

he cannot

slugsrbad wrote:

heyeaglefn wrote:Any chance Kennedy comes out and says Pysch in a few days.

he cannot

because it's sike

Is it effective immediately, or is there a time frame? Could he say, "effective post-midterms"?

PhillieMooDo wrote:Is it effective immediately, or is there a time frame? Could he say, "effective post-midterms"?

July 31

PhillieMooDo wrote:Is it effective immediately, or is there a time frame? Could he say, "effective post-midterms"?

july 31

Jeff Flake, a lonely nation turns its eyes to you

CalvinBall wrote:

Wolfgang622 wrote:

pacino wrote:he just spells out what they all just whisper

and how dumb does he think we are? he thinks rank and file vote the way their union says? if they did we wouldn't have seen the upsets in NYC or in Pittsburgh or his own #$!&@ win

I'll have him know the unions in my area are endorsing my opponent, a Republican, despite my well-documented for unions.

It's really hard not to hate everything right now.

wait, what, why?

because *some* who have pull at the PA AFL-CIO seem to think that having labor-friendly Republicans is some big hill to die on without realizing how interconnected everything is. they even are support a trump supporter (Rafferty) over Katie Muth! they didn't even endorse Summer Lee and Sara Innamorato despite them running unopposed because some Allegheny labor people were still sore about them beating the Costas. these dinosaurs are incredibly out of touch with membership.

luckily, the PSEA and SEIU have separate endorsements, so hopefully our pal can pick up some good endorsements and good publicity

CFP wrote:Jeff Flake, a lonely nation turns its eyes to you

More Murkowski/Collins if they really want to protect Roe v. Wade

slugsrbad wrote:

CFP wrote:Jeff Flake, a lonely nation turns its eyes to you

More Murkowski/Collins if they really want to protect Roe v. Wade

Wouldn't it be awful politically for the GOP if abortion were actually outlawed? I've always thought that deep down but maybe I'm naive

Grotewold wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:

CFP wrote:Jeff Flake, a lonely nation turns its eyes to you

More Murkowski/Collins if they really want to protect Roe v. Wade

Wouldn't it be awful politically for the GOP if abortion were actually outlawed? I've always thought that deep down but maybe I'm naive

perhaps for the ones that are pure politics, but the true believers will see it as a lifelong goal achieved.

I do feel the need to explain, for the uninitiated, exactly how agency fee worked, and how much Donal Trump's tweet revealed the game being played here.

Unions, like corporations, may not use money from the general fund for the endorsement of political candidates. Such money may be used for political education: so, just as soda companies can use their corporate profits to run ads saying things like "the soda tax hurts working families" or whatever, union have an equal right to use dues money to say "a right to work bill hurts working families." Notice that neither statement endorses a specific candidate. Neither dues money nor corporate profits may be used for that purpose.

Public sector unions, until today, had an arrangement that involved a further restriction. Yes, we could collect money from non-members, because non-members undoubtedly benefit from negotiated contracts and because unions must legally represent every person in their group (technical term: bargaining unit), whether that person is a member or not. However, any such money collected may not EVER be used for even political education on an issue that would be of concern to members. Such money can only be used to finance bargaining, grievance filing, and other contract enforcement. Such money must legally be held in escrow every year, and non-members presented with an annual report, which they had a 30 day window to challenge, before said money could be released into the general fund to pay the appropriate bills. Moreover, agency fee was never at any point guaranteed as something every union could collect - 26 of the 50 states before today were already "Right to Work," that is no agency fee allowed - and agency fee in any case had to be negotiated with the employer and then ratified into a contract by a vote of membership. So, there were many non-court based remedies available if you worked in a place that had agency fee and you wanted it gone. And money so collected was not EVER able to be used to fund a candidate ANYWHERE, Republican or Democrat, for anything. To have done so would have been highly illegal, even before today, and I can tell you that every local I work with had spent many hours a year ensuring they complied with all applicable laws surrounding agency fee, and that no such money was ever spent improperly, and for very good reason: if it was, and if a union got caught doing it, people could and would be prosecuted, and rightly so.

The only money that is legal for a corporation or a union to use in direct support of any candidate is money separately donated to the corporation or union and earmarked specifically for that purpose. Such contributions are strictly voluntary and can be made in any amount chosen by the donor. I donate to my union's political funds by my choice, as I am sure many of you do to your employer's political funds. All of that was as true yesterday as it is today. Therefore, no Democrat anywhere ever received money from a union that had originated as agency fee, or even as dues. OK: I am sure somewhere somebody cheated, but then those people often wind up the subject of FBI investigations. Every local I work with did it 100% honestly.

Moreover, union membership or non-membership or anything else having to do with a union in no way prevents an individual from speaking clearly and loudly against his/her union's stated positions, and in fact organizing his/her fellow workers to join them in being against those positions.

So the notion that agency fee deprived anyone of free speech was patently false. A non-member could say anything they liked about anyone they liked, was free to organize fellow members and non-members alike to join them in taking action against their own union if they wished, they could join even and STILL not have any part of their money used to back any particular political candidate (because using dues money to support a particular candidate was illegal before the Janus decision), and by joining they could vote for themselves into office to change what the union was doing or who it supported, or find like-minded members and vote them in. They could appeal to their state legislators to pass Right to Work legislation, which was happening all over the country. Instead, they ran to Mommy and Daddy today and had them come in and take their side. And Mommy and Daddy overruled a 9-0 decision by a 5-4, party-line vote that was the culmination of a six year assault on the law that made a mockery of even the appearance of impartiality by the five conservative justices. They long ago figured out what they wanted to do, then engineered a situation that permitted them to do it.

So Donald Trump's tweet on Janus was ridiculous, but also chillingly truthful. This was never about free speech. It was about the perception that unions only back Democrats, which is both untrue (see NJEA's amazingly stupid flop of a campaign to go with the non-Steve Sweeney candidate), and also kind of unaffected by today's decision anyway, since this decision does not touch COPE money - that is, the money collected on a strictly voluntary basis to back specific candidates.

All it really did was make it harder for unions to exist in the first place, or be effective advocates for the people they represent in their workplaces - which of course is the reason they exist in the first place. It is a rich man's ruling meant to make the rich man richer by making it much, much harder for his workers to meet him on equal footing.

That is its one and ONLY purpose, and it accomplishes it ruthlessly.

pacino wrote:perhaps for the ones that are pure politics, but the true believers will see it as a lifelong goal achieved.

I mean for the party as a whole, which to me is ultimately Big Money. They would lose a lot more votes (and power) than they'd gain