Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

High Court Upholds Curb on Political Use of Union Fees
Washington Post ^ | June 15, 2007 | Charles Lane

Posted on 06/15/2007 7:04:50 PM PDT by neverdem

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."

The state law applied to all unions, public and private sector alike, but Scalia noted that yesterday's ruling affects only public-sector unions.

The cases against the WEA were originally filed by both the state of Washington and individual teachers supported by conservative legal foundations, which have called the issue a major test of workers' rights to dissent from union political activities.

Though no other states have adopted laws similar to Washington's, yesterday's ruling confirms that they have a right to do so.

But its immediate practical impact in Washington state was limited by the legislature's adoption of a new law on May 10 that stipulates union political spending is not considered to come from agency fees. The WEA supported the law. But the new law did not make the case moot, Scalia noted, because the teachers who...

--snip--

The consolidated cases are Davenport v. Washington Educational Association, No. 05-1589, and Washington v. Washington Educational Association, No. 05-1657.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: scotus; unions

1 posted on 06/15/2007 7:04:52 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

funny how everyone complains about “coporate” money in elections yet when it comes to union money there is silence...


2 posted on 06/15/2007 7:16:22 PM PDT by God luvs America (When the silent majority speaks the earth trembles!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

A loss for the union leaders but a win for the union members. The members will finally have free speech rights!


3 posted on 06/15/2007 7:16:32 PM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

EXCELLENT NEWS!!!


4 posted on 06/15/2007 7:19:01 PM PDT by ZULU (Non nobis, non nobis Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam. God, guts and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Wow! A 9-0 smackdown by SCOTUS really says alot about the quality of judges on the Wash. Supreme Court.


5 posted on 06/15/2007 10:47:53 PM PDT by VeniVidiVici
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: God luvs America; doug from upland; Libertina; Baynative; EdReform; Calpernia; DaveLoneRanger

funny how everyone complains about “corporate” money in elections yet when it comes to union money there is silence...


Excellent point.


6 posted on 06/15/2007 11:48:20 PM PDT by The Spirit Of Allegiance (Public Employees: Honor Your Oaths! Defend the Constitution from Enemies--Foreign and Domestic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici
A 9-0 smackdown by SCOTUS

That's amazing that even Stevens and Ginsburg reversed the SCOWA.

7 posted on 06/16/2007 12:38:26 AM PDT by rhinohunter (...I'm not waiting on a lady...I'm just waiting on a Fred)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: The Spirit Of Allegiance; neverdem

“funny how everyone complains about “corporate” money in elections yet when it comes to union money there is silence...


Excellent point.”

This Court case argues that you both need to have your hearing checked.


8 posted on 06/16/2007 3:41:12 AM PDT by gas0linealley (.good fences make good neighbors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rhinohunter

“That’s amazing that even Stevens and Ginsburg reversed the SCOWA.”

Does that give you more confidence in the wisdom of the Court’s decision?


9 posted on 06/16/2007 3:43:55 AM PDT by gas0linealley (.good fences make good neighbors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Two things are significant here. First, the ruling did not ban the use of union fees for political purposes. It only required that unions get “permission” from the employee.

Unions operate on intimidation. It will be easy to get permission one way or another. You can imagine what kind of treatment a worker will receive if he refuses to give his permission.

Second, notice that this applies to “public employees.”
Unions have steadily lost membership in the private sector over the years. States with Right to Work Laws and the fact that more people have caught on to union corruption have thinned the ranks.

Unions have long since learned that they can easily organize government workers. Government workers are inherently more susceptible to being organized into lock-step. In addition, government negotiators who deal with unions are not using their own money. It’s easier to give in to union demands while meeting in Hawaii than to fight for the taxpayers’ money.

So this does not mean very much.

10 posted on 06/16/2007 7:53:20 AM PDT by R.W.Ratikal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

great news


11 posted on 06/16/2007 7:57:33 AM PDT by Wheee The People (Go FRed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: R.W.Ratikal; ElkGroveDan; Grampa Dave; tubebender; hedgetrimmer; forester; NormsRevenge; ...
"So this does not mean very much."

Unfortunately, you are probably quite right! It's sad that there's been a "Beck" law on the books for years but the yoonyun goons just keep on keepin on without any more regard of our laws than the horde of illegal aliens invading the United States of America with the blessing of far too many Republican elected leaders and law makers!!!

The Pacific Legal Foundation guy was on Sacramento radio really beatin his chest over this "victory" this past week!!!

12 posted on 06/16/2007 6:03:36 PM PDT by SierraWasp (I'm not just "in contempt of CONgress," now I'm in contempt of all 3 branches of our governments!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson