Mark Janus

My Podcast Debate on Mandatory Union Fees and the First Amendment

The National Constitution Center invited Alicia Hickok and me to debate Janus; Ms. Hickok wrote an amicus brief supporting Janus, and I signed an amicus brief supporting the AFSCME.

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

Listen to it or download it here; here's the direct link, and here's the Megaphone link. I much enjoyed participating in it—hope you enjoy listening.

Advertisement

NEXT: Curling Is the Closest the Olympics Ever Get to Anarchy

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Great discussion.
    Thank you.

  2. BTW, Eugene carries the day in this debate.

    1. I agree, and given Ms. Hickock’s inability to counter Prof. Volokh’s comparison between bargaining unit agency fees and taxes, I’m very much looking forward to a win for Janus! Sorry IRS, your stinkin’ tax bill violates my first amendment rights!

  3. I dunno, Volokh’s position seems to be that since the govt can compel you to fund speech you don’t like in other venues, there should be no 1st Amend right to object to it in the context of being forced to do it by unions’.
    I don’t think that is a legitimate fundamental position to take, simply put two wrongs don’t make a right.

    The simple fact is, nobody should be forced to pay for speech or other actions they don’t agree with.
    Tax funded objected speech notwithstanding, a private relationship between an employee and a service proffering union is much more contractually based.
    A union from the get-go, as a non-govt taxing entity, should not be able to arrogate money from the employee without voluntary consent, just as a contractual matter.
    A union taking money from an employee, and then using that money to promote speech that the employee disagrees with is one step further, and is a 1st Amendment violation.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.