Unions Lose on Political Fee Issue

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

Unions Lose on Political Fee Issue

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer

Thursday, June 14, 2007

(06-14) 08:04 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --

States may force public sector labor unions to get consent
from workers before using their fees for political activities,
the Supreme Court said Thursday.

The court unanimously upheld a Washington state law that
applied to public employees who choose not to join the union
that represents them in contract talks with state and local
governments. The workers are compelled to pay the equivalent
of union dues, a portion of which the union uses for political
activities.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the court, said the law
does not violate the union's First Amendment rights.

But the state's Democratic governor and Democratic-controlled
legislature recently changed the law to eliminate the provision
that was upheld Thursday, blunting the impact of the court
ruling.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/06/14/national/w072016D40.DTL

[Wink]

1. Yeah, I get to pay for scabs

My union brothers with their deathwish love of the GOP get to opt out of contributing to the political party that will best look out for their best interest. Let's see, they get the wonderful union pay scale and don't have to sacrifice anything for it. Sounds like quite a deal. Selfishness must be in their DNA.

[proud2BlibKansan]

5. This isn't about not paying union dues

It's about using dues money for political campaigns.

Now imagine you belonged to a union that was dominated by freepers. Would you want your dues money used to support THEIR candidates?

[maddezmom]

2. High Court Upholds Curb on Political Use of Union Fees

High Court Upholds Curb on Political Use of Union Fees

By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 15, 2007; Page A02

The Supreme Court yesterday unanimously upheld a Washington state law that requires public employee unions to get permission before making political contributions using fees they collect from nonmembers.

The law, unique in the nation, was adopted in a 1992 referendum to limit unions' spending of the "agency fees" they deduct from the paychecks of employees who do not belong to the unions but are represented by them in collective bargaining.


Washington state's Supreme Court struck the law down, saying that forcing the Washington Education Association (WEA), a teacher union, to get written waivers from employees before using their agency fees burdened the union's free-speech rights.

Yesterday, however, the U.S. Supreme Court threw that ruling out. Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion for the court noted, "The notion that this modest limitation upon an extraordinary benefit violates the First Amendment is, to say the least, counterintuitive."

more:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/14/AR2007061400542.html

[Omaha Steve]

3. Thank you for the post

I'm busy preparing for my binding arbitration case to get my job back next Tuesday. There have been discussions for a settlement, but one has not been reached yet.

[NashVegas]

4. Take a Look at This Chart

If you don't understand just how much of this is a political attack on Democrats.


http://opensecrets.org/orgs/list.asp?order=A

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. I don't see it as an attack on Democrats at all

It's about using union dues to support particular political candidates.

[Trajan]

7. I would sign the consent form ...

Preferably one that allowed my ENTIRE dues remittance to be used to support Democratic candidates ... allowing the union to spend 100 % of the dues from those who refuse to sign on non-political expenses, while spending 100 % of the dues from consenters on political needs seems a reasonable thing to do ...



There is more than one way to skin a cat, so they say ...

[pschoeb]

8. Sillyness, Why is there no law that allows for shareholders to opt

out a portion of their money being used for political purposes by the corporation they hold stock in? Or to opt out of their portion of money being used to lobby legislators or given to phony trade organizations or PACs?

[Sgent]

9. Corporations don't contribute to PAC's

not directly anyway -- only a US citizen can (not a corp). What happens is that all the senior exec's contribute.

[sneakythomas]

10. Actually stockholders have options.

They can vote their stock, show up at the stockholders meetings, and if nothing else works, sell the stock and do something else with their money. As always, its a rich man's game.