AP: "Supreme Court jumps into dispute over labor union fees in state"
The Supreme Court agreed today to decide whether public employee unions must get special permission before spending some workers' dues on political causes. Justices accepted an appeal from the state of Washington that involves fees paid to the Washington Education Association by teachers who decline to join the union.The case stemmed from a complaint by the Evergreen Freedom Foundation. The AP adds:
The state court said that forcing the union to seek permission from each worker violated the union's free speech rights.Indeed. But Susan Owens voted with the majority. Another reason to replace her with Stephen Johnson in November.The three dissenters in the case, however, said the ruling "turned the First Amendment on its head," by valuing the rights of the union above those of individuals.
In order to get a job with the state, you must join a union. (Is this all jobs now, or are there some that are excluded from the law passed last year?)
Once in a union, union dues are deducted automatically from your paycheck.
Once the union has that money, they have the right to spend it however they see fit.
Most unions see fit to spend political money almost exclusively for one political party (Dems).
If you want to redirect the political fee portion of your dues to other than the unions choice, you must jump through hoops and in some cases are severely restricted in where that money goes.
The SayWa SC says that any restictions on the individuals choice of where their money is spent on politics are justified because it allows unions to have freedom of association.
So, to shorten it up, to work for the state, you must finacially support the Dem party, or work somewhere else.
Close enough?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on September 26, 2006 09:18 AMI think it will be a 9-0 vote to reverse; and 7-2 in a worse case scenario.
Posted by: Don on September 26, 2006 09:56 AMThe majority opinion is here:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=2006_sc/742685MAJ&invol=4
The opinion from the dissenting Justices is here:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=2006_sc/742685DI1&invol=4
Posted by: Jeff T. on September 26, 2006 10:06 AMYou missed a line: After, "Most unions see fit to spend political money almost exclusively for one political party (Dems)."
That political party returns the favor by creating more state or union jobs many of which are not necessary. (Toll Roads anyone?)
Posted by: Brent in Ferndale on September 26, 2006 10:21 AMthe argument for forced unions is "then don't work there" does not fly for me--maybe people want to get different experiences in their careers--private & public; also, don't libs and Dems howl when "forced" to do things by the "right" or to take self-responsibility? yet they like to force things on others.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on September 26, 2006 10:23 AMI know this is unusual, but could this be the government saying 'do as I say, not as I do'? What a surprise!
Posted by: Right said Fred on September 26, 2006 11:17 AM
This is why there is a second amendment.
The Right to Work Initiative needs a coalition of Employers, Workers (Union & Non-Union) as well as private citizens. A key issue is:
THE HUGELY UNDERFUNDED STATE PENSION FUND and UNDERFUNDED HEALTH BENEFIT PROGRAMS.
The State is in huge financial straits. HUGE...caused by Democrat pandering and unreasonable concessions to the State Employees Union and Teachers Union.
Budget & Tax impacts of Right to Work as well as the philosophical arguments are necessary to convince voters AND a broad-based coalition pushing it!!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on September 26, 2006 12:10 PMThis happened while I was in college (1992-96). I remember ASUCD (Assoc. Students, UCD) having to go through some serious contortions to get in compliance.
And the "if you don't like it, don't work here" line might be OK for private employers, since both the union and the employer have free association rights. I fBoeing and the Machinists want to have a closed shop, no problem. But when the employer is the government, in any form,, it should be a non-starter. And for some professions, the government is the only, or almost the only, employer available. The majority of jobs for teachers are in public schools. And it's pretty much impossible to be a cop or firefighter in the private sector.
Posted by: Heartless Libertarian on September 26, 2006 12:53 PMFor those who want centrist, moderate views -- he offers exactly the opposite.
Beware of extremists (from either party) joining the court.
Finally, as a lifelong right of right republican, he can hardly play a centrist, objective role on the court.
This is a great reason why judges shouldn't be elected. But since they are, extremists like Johnson should be kept off the bench at all costs.
Posted by: Jim Miller on September 26, 2006 01:09 PMNow that's funny. Clearly, "Jim Miller" has no idea of Steve Johnson's record in the Senate. Typical, reactionary leftist without a clue.
Posted by: jimg on September 27, 2006 08:38 AM