The House Committee on State Government & Tribal Affairs yesterday approved, on a party line vote, HB 2079 "Concerning use of agency shop fees".
The bill, which would allow public employee unions to use non-member mandatory fees for political purposes without the feepayer's permission, is an end-run around the U.S. Supreme Court case against the Washington Education Association.
Even more appalling, the bill that passed out of committee contains an "emergency clause"
This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediatelySeems like the Democrats in the Legislature think that the government employee unions are the government. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 22, 2007 09:30 AM | Email This
Posted by Pacific Grove Phlash at February 22, 2007 09:51 AM
That's easy: Blame It On Bush.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/02/22/police_take_home_citys_biggest_paychecks/
Posted by: me on February 22, 2007 10:40 AMEvery mandatory organization has to allow its members to refuse to pay the pro-rata share of its dues or fees that are used for political purposes. This is 1st amendment freedom of speech under the U.S. Constitution.
As an attorney, I can deduct about three bucks of my Washington State Bar Association dues, if I choose for this reason. This is the pro-rata share of WSBA spending on political lobbying activities.
Certainly, the WSBA cannot claim that non-objecting members contribute plenty enough dues, so that THEIR money can be used for political lobbying. Otherwise, no organization would have to allow non-consenting members (or agency paying non-members in the case of labor unions) to deduct political activities from their dues.
I will be surprised if McKenna's office even bothers to defend the lawsuit that the Evergreen Freedom Foundation will file the day that Fraudoire signs this bill into law. There is no good faith argument that can possibly be made that this proposed law is constitutional.
This will simply result in another court victory for the EFF in federal district court. Temporary restraining order, permanent injunction, and a really big bill to the State for attorney fees under 42 USC 1983 & 1988 for the EFF's attorney services in having to get an unconstitutional law overturned.
On the other hand, Fraudoire isn't an idiot. She KNOWS this law would be unconstitutional. Maybe she will veto it ...
Posted by: Richard Pope on February 22, 2007 10:50 AMUnder Keller v. State Bar of California, the WSBA cannot use the compulsory membership fees of objecting WSBA members for political or ideological activities that are not reasonably related to the regulation of the legal profession or improving the quality of legal services. These activities are considered "nonchargeable." The WSBA may use compulsory membership fees for all other activities.
WSBA members may deduct a specified amount from their membership fee payment that represents each member's pro rata portion of fees devoted to nonchargeable activities. The method used to calculate the fee reduction is based on the method approved by the U.S. Supreme Court in Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson. In that case, the Court indicated that it was appropriate to use the year for which the most recent audit report is available as the base line period for determining chargeable and nonchargeable activities and for calculating the cost of the nonchargeable activities.
http://www.wsba.org/lawyers/licensing/faq-keller.htm
Posted by: Richard Pope on February 22, 2007 10:53 AMHB 2079 seems to do away with the pro-rata rebate (or pro-rata reduction) in agency fees for non-members, versus what the normal union dues would be.
Since the option of a pro-rata rebate or reduction of agency fees for dissenting (or non-affirming) non-members is no longer available, then the only option is to prohibit unions from collecting ANY agency fees from non-members, when the union uses any funds for political purposes.
Posted by: Richard Pope on February 22, 2007 11:10 AMLiberalism is a mental disease and the Democratparty is a party of and for LOSERS.............
Posted by: NJERALD on February 22, 2007 11:16 AMLiberalism is a mental disease and the Democrat party is a party of and for LOSERS.............
Posted by: NJERALD on February 22, 2007 11:16 AMDon't complain about the political and judicial corruption if you are unwilling to do anything effective to end it.
Posted by: Don on February 22, 2007 12:43 PM"people of color" have just as much right to be corrupt as white people, and to be represented by corrupt government.
Posted by: kettle on February 22, 2007 12:55 PMThe emergency clause means no referendum and the activst Supreme Court has basically said it will not question the legislature's finding of an emergency.
That means we need to put together an initiative. I'd actually hold off on it so that it can be voted on in November 2008. It will give the Union's something to spend their money on AND the pro-initiative side can absolutely pummel Gregoire on the end-run around the supreme court and her record of caving-in to the public employee unions.
We can also do another about her anti-democratic judicial initiative.
This is an example of over-reach. With someone besides Bush at the head of the ticket, 2008 might turnout to be a Republican year in Washington--the first in 14 years.
Posted by: BB on February 22, 2007 03:32 PM"WVH there you go again being racist.
"people of color" have just as much right to be corrupt as white people, and to be represented by corrupt government."
You idiot. Corruption, no matter what the race, class, or religion is just plain wrong. If you can't see that, you are an idiot and don't deserve even a passing comment.
Posted by: WVH on February 22, 2007 09:56 PM