If pro-union crowd was not engaging in constant double-speak with regard to unions and legal issues, I would not have so much of a problem with them.
What is double-speak? It is language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. One of the common ways this is done is by conflating "worker freedom" (to be in a union) with union freedom to either force people into unions or to collect money from them.
Example? This article:
The Supreme Court’s Janus ruling is flawed. Canadian legal history shows why.
"Through the 1980s, the Canadian Supreme Court also construed constitutional rights in ways that restricted workers’ collective freedom."
What is "
collective freedom?" That inherently doesn't even make sense. "
Restricting workers' collective freedom" is a dishonest turn of phrase that basically says that disallowing unions from restricting individuals' freedoms... is an act of restricting individuals' freedoms.
"The 1976 Hudgens v. NLRB decision ruled that workers’ First Amendment freedom of speech took a back seat to employers’ property rights."
That is a shameful, inexcusable bastardization of
Hudgens v. NLRB.
"Harris v. Quinn in 2014 have continued to restrict workers’ freedom to engage in collective action"
And that is also a shameful, inexcusable bastardization of
Harris v. Quinn. These authors are hoping readers take their word for it and don't actually do any reading about those cases. This sort of bull**** actively makes people dumber, and the pro-union crowd seems intent on that.
"Creating a more equal bargaining relationship requires actively defending and enforcing workers’ freedom to act collectively."
Those cases weren't about "
worker freedom to act collectively," they were about
unions' freedom to infringe on others' rights against their objections, and where the lines against their coercive behaviors need to be drawn.
"And key to defending that freedom is to ensure that all who benefit from the collective good contribute to maintaining it."
The way these authors are conflating every union interest with "worker freedom" is pure doublespeak, i.e. misleading propaganda. I don't stand for bull**** like this.
And for an article with the audacity to claim the Supreme Court "got this wrong," this comment sure ignores the following argument in Alito's written opinion:
Respondents and some of their amici endorse this reasoning, contending that agency feesare needed to prevent nonmembers from enjoying the benefits of union representation without shouldering the costs. Brief for Union Respondent 34–36; Brief for State Respondents 41–45; see, e.g., Brief for International Brotherhood of Teamsters as Amicus Curiae 3–5.
Petitioner strenuously objects to this free-rider label. He argues that he is not a free rider on a bus headed for a destination that he wishes to reach but is more like a person shanghaied for an unwanted voyage.
Whichever description fits the majority of public employees who would not subsidize a union if given the option, avoiding free riders is not a compelling interest. As we have noted, “free-rider arguments . . . are generally insufficient to overcome First Amendment objections.” Knox, 567 U. S., at 311. To hold otherwise across the board would have startling consequences. Many private groups speak out with the objective of obtaining government action that will have the effect of benefiting nonmembers. May all those who are thought to benefit from such efforts be compelled to subsidize this speech?
Suppose that a particular group lobbies or speaks out on behalf of what it thinks are the needs of senior citizens or veterans or physicians, to take just a few examples. Could the government require that all seniors, veterans, or doctors pay for that service even if they object? It has never been thought that this is permissible. “[P]rivate speech often furthers the interests of non speakers,” but “that does not alone empower the state to compel the speech to be paid for.” Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Assn., 500
U. S. 507, 556 (1991) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). In simple terms, the First Amendment does not permit the government to compel a person to pay for another party’s speech just because the government thinks that the speech furthers the interests of the person who does not want to pay.
