Janus vs. AFSCME - a personal take - Granite Grok

Janus vs. AFSCME – a personal take

John_Stark_statue,_Concord_NHUPDATE: As the Supreme court just decided for Janus and against the unions, this post is appropriate.  Best news? SCOTUS rules that public sector union MUST be opt-in for payments.   Essentially, this returns freedom to individuals over the unions; no more paycheck protection for unions.

************

“Live Free or Die” – that’s our state motto and unlike many on the Left that find that absolutely abhorrent, it’s one of the reasons why I’ve stayed in the Granite State for over three decades (yep, came for a job, stayed for the motto).  The rest of the motto is not one that is repeated too often, that saying from General John Stark to his former soldiers: “Death is not the worst of all evils“. The Progressives here shudder every time it is stated.

For them, life is not to be free in the traditional sense of the word.  Freedom is the Collective.  Freedom is belonging to such a collective.  It also isn’t about remembering history because much of their philosophy regresses back to the mistakes and catastrophes of the 20th and 19th Centuries when Collectivism tried to overwhelm that most radical of American ideals – the idea that the Individual is sovereign and happens to have a government instead of what most of the world’s history and actions show to be the opposite – a country with subjects.

And so, too, is Janus vs. AFSCME – the now Supreme Court case in which the oral arguments have been heard and only the judgement needs to be rendered.  I have an idea that it is going to be like both the Citizens United (whereby the Left’s Progressives show they are against Free Speech EVERY time it comes up) and the recent Masterpiece Bake Shop (aka Religious Liberty returns to the Public Square).

For them, life is not to be free in the traditional sense of the word.  Freedom is the Collective.  Freedom is belonging to such a collective.  It also isn’t about remembering history because much of their philosophy regresses back to the mistakes and catastrophes of the 20th and 19th Centuries when Collectivism tried to overwhelm that most radical of American ideals – the idea that the Individual is sovereign and happens to have a government instead of what most of the world’s history and actions show to be the opposite – a country with subjects.

And so, too, is Janus vs. AFSCME – the now Supreme Court case in which the oral arguments have been heard and only the judgement needs to be rendered.  I have an idea that it is going to be like both the Citizens United (whereby the Left’s Progressives show they are against Free Speech EVERY time it comes up) and the recent Masterpiece Bake Shop (aka Religious Liberty returns to the Public Square).

Liberty.  The idea that one can make their own decisions for themselves without encroachment by others wishing to take that right of decision away from them. In fact, here in New Hampshire, it is directly mentioned:

[Art.] 2. [Natural Rights.] All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by this state on account of race, creed, color, sex or national origin.

Now, through in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights in our US Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The first protects our Right to Liberty – to choose for ourselves that which we, well, choose.  It makes no different what, when, or where – WE choose and it should not be the Government nor others that choose for us. To the second, our Right to assemble is often referred to as Free Association – we have the Liberty to chose those others that we wish to be with regardless of time or place. The important item, to swing back to the title of this post, is to recognize the Right to NOT associate with as well.  Government, cannot force us (or should not, anyways) force us to be with those we otherwise wouldn’t REGARDLESS of some silly notions that politicians and bureaucrats have that they, simply by dint of getting a paycheck with Uncle Sam’s signature on it, know better than we what is best for ourselves. Sure, perhaps they do but THAT’S NOT THEIR PLACE (although it seems the Collective political policy, having left the confines of the “Leave us ALONE!” mindset believes we to be too stupid for ourselves own best interests.  To that I succinctly leave them with the short phrase “Up Yours!” as nothing else seems to capture their attention in the manner necessary). But I digress once again (hey, that’s what bloggers do!)

Back to the Collective and the above Constitutional clauses – Janus vs. AFSCME.  This is all about one thing and one thing only: the Power that others can determine you must be associated with those you in order to earn a living and support your family.  There is no Liberty at all when it comes to a closed shop union.  Either you join or you don’t work.  How unAmerican is that? Sure, there are some that gladly with to fold themselves in with others both for the sake of “fellowship” and for labor bargaining with others.  I have no problem with that at all – knock yourselves out if it helps you in your journey in “seeking and obtaining happiness“. I wish you nothing but the best.

Just don’t force it on me. In this case, I want nothing to do with your brand of happiness – I wish to be left alone and to make my way alone.  For me, Collectivism in the form of unions is way overblown – it engenders too much of the attitudes of “us vs them” and “we will take what we want” regardless of the impact on others.  NO person ought to have to join a union – that is an affront to Liberty.  It is an affront to the Right of Free Association.  It diminishes my Freedoms to that of a cog in a large machine controlled by others (which to say, is no Liberty at all in this regard).

And it’s personal, as I have written before.  I’ve been accepted to be an Adjunct Professor at our local Community College.

Sidenote: this is hilarious – my son is going to be in my class.  After being a deployed Marine, working in the local area in various factories, he’s at the head of his class studying computer science (a double: game programming and networking).  Apparently, he’s scared all of his classmates in talking about me. Wait until he find outs out that the guy about to give him his diploma is moi! Hahahahaha!

Which means I will be coerced into joining a union for the first time.

Sidenote II: I also find it hilarious that the local State Employee union that covers the Community College system, is the aptly named SEIU 1984. Not shortage of irony in the “Live Free or Die” State, eh?

It doesn’t matter that I wouldn’t be a full member – I do rail against having to pay an “agency fee” for the job the union would do in “negotiating my work conditions”.  Simply put, screw that – I’m old enough with enough experience to do so for myself. Thus far, I’ve done pretty well for myself – better than what a union would do.  I neither want them or need them.  And how many of you keep finding their tired shopworn phrase “Work for Less” stupid and ignorant (especially when someone like me brings up “Right to Work”)?  Yet, that’s what the Supremes did back when they incorrectly decided Abood in that they could stomach the idea of making a clean break so they band-aided their decision: a little here, a little there – and no one was satisfied with the decision.  Sure, the unions no longer got their full dues but those that never (or no longer) wanted to associate with a union because they didn’t offer Value for their coerced dues were stuck.

I don’t want to give them any of my money – and it is government, right now, that forces them to be able to do so.  Liberty?  Again, if you want to be in one, full Liberty to do so – I wish to claim nothing less than the Liberty to be on my own. Let me ride my own horse rather than forcing me to ride in your herd.  I neither need or want your help. It’s not selfish of me to go my own way

Sidenote III: we hear that a lot from Collectivists – if you don’t join, if you don’t share “their values”, you are automatically selfish.  Really?  Why are you selfish in demanding my money? Why are you selfish in demanding my allegiance to something I can’t stand (e.g., 1984 much?)? Why must you insist I must be be part of your herd? Why must I be FORCED to join – is it that you are so bad that you have taken choice away?

The main point of this suit, Janus vs. AFSCME, is a more fundamental issue than just joining – it is about Free Speech.  Rather, it is about a union’s political speech that is paid for by union dues and those coerced into “agency fees”.  To wit, being Collectivists, it is clear how political unions have become and to which part of the political spectrum they belong. It is also clear which Party they pick to support and throw their money behind in supporting political and advocacy campaigns.

And it should be anyone clear reading this (or the other 10s of thousands of posts I have done here) where I lie on said spectrum. Why should my Liberty of Free Speech be coerced into supporting that I believe to be anathema?  There is no choice in a union, there is no freedom for dissent in this.  This is the reason for Janus, where that teacher decided enough was enough that he would fight for his own freedom of expression instead of being coerced into speech that was extremely counter to his own beliefs.

Sounds rather simple, right?  It should be – one should not be forced to associate with those holding other beliefs and taking action on them with your money.  You should not have to be “represented” by those that do not represent you at all.

And that you must pay them for the privilege for doing so. Let’s face it, money is fungible – don’t tell me there’s a lockbox that will have my name on it to be spent only on negotiations? If my money adds to that pot, it means other monies can go to speaking that which goes against my core as a union doesn’t have to put what would have been “the usual” amount of money into that GL account.

And that list of things that the unions advocate for have NOTHING to do with their place of work.  No, they’ve become full spectrum political operatives (just with a different title).  You name it, they’re there: gun control, healthcare, illegal immigration, raising of taxes, Mother GAIA (er, environmentalism).  What’s worse is the insidious replacement of the traditional emphasis of reading, writing, and ‘rithmatic with transgenderism, Pride weeks, and the rest of the Democrat identity totem.

And over the last 12/13 years, the move to belief, in my case with the SEIU and the NEA Code of Ethics that will be hung around me, the idea that parents are the enemy unless pacified.  That teachings that parents are trying to inculcate into their children must be summarily dismissed and replaced with the union’s own special brand of morality. This is the most egregious of all – I do not wish to be a part of that at all.

But I would have no choice in any of this. And my choice to direct where my monies would best represent my priorities is diminished.  It really doesn’t matter the amount, either a percentage or absolute value – it is the principle of the matter

Sidenote IV: anyone SO tired of those demanding your money always saying “it’s just a cuppa coffee – what’s your beef”? Again, it’s that hubris they know better how to spend your money better than they do, and the hubris in believing your money SHOULD be theirs anyways.

Janus vs AFSCME – not just untying the knot but slicing it into smithereens.