1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !uspolitics@lemmy.world
7) No Hit-and-Run questions.
Please don't delete your post for no apparent reason. If you plan on deleting a question later, say so in the post, or if you feel that you have a good reason to remove it, message a mod beforehand. It's not fair to the ones who took their time to answer, and it's not in the spirit of the community.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
You cant sue the government without a specific tort, and "the state purposefully collected less revenue in order to deny giving me more money" is not a rational or legal argument. Further, you explicitly cannot sue the government for performing the duties of the government, like collecting taxes or carrying mail.
You have no actionable cause. It sounds like what youre looking for is thoughts and prayers.
I believe what you're looking for is a union, not a lawsuit.
Many government employees are unable to unionize, but otherwise I thoroughly agree
As a general principle, it's legal for states to set taxes at whatever they want, including $0. You'd need to find a specific statute or constitutional provision that's being violated to sue. Basically, if there isn't a law explicitly banning the conduct, you can't sue over it.
Someone cannot: A class action requires multiple parties.
In general, you can sue if you can prove damages. A class action probably isn’t the right vessel - you haven’t lost money, but you have the perception that money would have gone to you.
Legally, I don’t think that holds much weight.
I feel like getting some media attention is a more effective angle, especially if you can gather enough detailed information and contact a journalist.
Hold up... How does paying LESS TAXES mean they have LESS money for raises? Sounds more like the company needs to be sued, not the state.
"They" is used a bit ambiguously. I think OP refers to state employees, "they" meaning the state in the second half of the first paragraph.
Thank you. I have replaced “they” with “the state” and added “less revenue” to hopefully clear things up. If there is anything else that is ambiguous or unclear, please let me know.
You can probably sue the state for things that are actively harmful, like creating dangerous roads. But a lawsuit trying to set different priorities in revenue and spending isn't going to get very far. Setting tax rates is fundamentally political. That's the entire purpose of a state legislature, so the remedy is at the ballot box.
TBH, I wouldn't want a random selection of unelected people from my state (a jury) to be able to have the power to decide tax rates.
I am not looking to affect tax rates, I mentioned it as a reason why we state employees are being negatively impacted.
Regardless of the cause, we are being financially harmed by our employer (the state), and I would like to do something legal about it.
That is what unions are for. In my country some years ago our postal workers' union's strike resulted in the prime minister resigning.
So unionizing and organizing a strike would be the most effective legal thing i would say.
Isn't that what strikes are for?
Strikes don’t affect change if the powers that be don’t listen. My state has had a lot of strikes from teachers that produced nothing positive for the teachers. And all other state employees are legally banned from unionizing.
I feared this was the case. I can sympathize.
The problem here starts with your elected officials. They set spending policy which affects your salary budget. There is, as far as I know, no direct legal action you can take to correct this. My state’s employees have been experiencing this for decades.
You can try raising money for lobbyists to represent government employees. You can run for office. You can try getting publicity about the problem in the media.
But you know, consultations with lawyers are free.
I wonder then if the better approach may be to find a way challenging the law that bars employees from unionizing?; specially since teachers are already allowed to unionize.
IANAL but states are often given sovereign immunity in court, so I would guess the lawsuit wouldn't get very far unless they allow you to sue them in the first place
Okay. Sorry. What does that have to do with you liking butt secks again?
Weirdly enough, that too is illegal in my state. 🫣 🙄
~Everything, except missionary.~
While I agree with the rest of the comments saying an extended strike and a proper union are ideal, I think you best bet is to talk to a lawyer first.
