Constitutionality of forced union dues

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

At the moment, there is no reason for there to be a difference in constitutionality for public and private employees.  No one is forced to take a government job, so the coercion argument applies equally for both public and private employment.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

At the moment, there is no reason for there to be a difference in constitutionality for public and private employees.  No one is forced to take a government job, so the coercion argument applies equally for both public and private employment.

The problem with that logic is that the Constitution applies to the government in ways it doesn't apply to individuals. As an employer, the government would be required to adhere to those standards whereas a private employer might not be so required. (that's not to say that additional laws couldn't be created to make employers adhere to them, it's just that the Constitution itself doesn't require it)

But as I pointed out, the government here is only acting as one of many possible employers, not sole employer, so the restrictions on what could be done are not as stringent, since Fourteenth Amendment concerns don't apply .  About the only thing that might be applicable on the issue of labor rights in the Constitution (absent some appeal to the Ninth Amendment based on the theory of natural law) would be if a legislative ban on union shop contracts or on union membership for government employees would be considered to be an infringement on the First Amendment rights to peaceably assemble and/or petition the Government.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

About the only thing that might be applicable on the issue of labor rights in the Constitution (absent some appeal to the Ninth Amendment based on the theory of natural law) would be if a legislative ban on union shop contracts or on union membership for government employees would be considered to be an infringement on the First Amendment rights to peaceably assemble and/or petition the Government.

Well isn't that the opposite side of the same coin? Isn't forcing union dues essentially forcing you to be a member of a union? The thing about rights is that you're supposed to have a choice about when to exercise them.

You would only be forced to pay union dues if you were forced to be a government employee.  Your argument could be used to support the general proposition that the union shop is unconstitutional regardless of whether the employer was public or private, but not that only government be affected by a constitutional ban on having a union shop in its workplace.

Personally, I think this issue is not dealt with directly in the Constitution, but the Congress does have authority under the Commerce Clause to ban union shops if it chooses to, or to override a State ban if it chooses.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In Pickering there was a specific Constitutional provision that can be referred to that establishes the difference between what can be done publicly and privately.  You've yet to point to anything other than a vague "the government shouldn't do that".

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In Pickering there was a specific Constitutional provision that can be referred to that establishes the difference between what can be done publicly and privately.  You've yet to point to anything other than a vague "the government shouldn't do that".

Did I not mention the First Amendment in the opening post?

You never addressed how if a union shop were considered a restriction on peaceable assembly is any less or more of a concern for a private employer compared to a public employer.  If anything, banning a union shop from existing whether for public or private employers is a restriction.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

So you are arguing that government employees have less freedom of assembly than non-government employees (i.e., they cannot negotiate for a union shop contract) because of the First Amendment guarantees on freedom of assembly?  Quite the paradox there.

That's the crucial difference between this and Pickering.  In Pickering upholding the teacher's right to speak did not interfere the rights of other government employees to speak as they chose.  You would however hold that in order to uphold the rights of government employees who do not wish to work for a union shop the government must violate the the rights of government employees who do wish to work for a union shop.  I see nothing in the Constitution that would give preeminence to the rights of either group of government employees.  That leaves the question of whether a government workplace ends up being a union shop a matter for negotiation, just as it would be for a private employer.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Not really. Government employees have every right to join a union if they so wish - but the government, their employer, can't force them to do so.

Repeated assertion doesn't make your opinion here true.  I'd agree with your premise if people were forced to work for the government.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And here we get to the crux of the matter, you are holding that your opinion of which right has precedence is so indisputably correct that it rises to the level of being a constitutional interpretation to be dictated by judicial fiat instead of being one to be left to legislative or executive opinion that the people can overrule if they wish by throwing the bums out who hold that opinion.  I agree that it isn't a good idea for government workers to be forced to join a union, but I disagree that it is unconstitutional.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Agreed, a good debate, and one in which I also think we've said all we have to say on this.