LANDMARK FORCES CALIFORNIA TEACHERS UNION TO REFUND POLITICAL FUNDS TO TEACHERS

Landmark Legal Foundation ^ | 10/27/05 | Landmark Legal Foundation

[On the Road to Serfdom]

>>>I'm not too clear on how this works. How can a union require a fee from someone who is not a member?

Yes, in some states the union can force non-members to pay for representatition related expenses (but not political expenses(legally)).

[talleyman]

Woo-hoo! Bumpus Maximus!

[newzjunkey]

Congratulations on this victory.

[newzjunkey]

First, CA is not a "right to work" state. Second, Gov Grey Davis (D) signed a law requiring it and no one's been able to get a repeal to Arnold's desk. The first shot at fixing this is Prop 75 on the Governator's reform special election in a couple weeks. This prevents public unions from using dues for political purposes without express written permission from each worker.

This bottomless funding source for the Dem's comrades is a repulsive act based on the "fig leaf" that because their employment is affected by the union, even non-members should pay their "fair share" for activities taken to their benefit.

Thanks to this endless, compulsory funding source where paychecks are essentially taxed or garnished, the Governator's being outspent at least 3:1 by the unions. The unions have been running smear ads on TV, radio and billboards all *year* long. They are so desperate, the teacher's union has borrowed against future special assessments of its members.

This decision sought by Landmark is a serious victory.

[AirForceBrat23]

OK, got it. Thanks for the clarification.

[CyberAnt]

No it doesn't! The administration doesn't have anything to do with that fee.

It's the unions who make even non-members pay some kind of fee - for what purpose I don't know. I read it somewhere.

But the non-union members will give the CTA a run for their money - they've now formed their own organization.

[Carry_Okie]

No it doesn't! The administration doesn't have anything to do with that fee.

The unions may have demanded it, but somebody has to do set up the accounting and deduct the money from the paycheck.

[CyberAnt]

But that wouldn't be the state, unless the state were the employer - and it would only be deducted if the employee filled out a form saying they wanted that amount taken out of their paycheck and distributed to the union. The employer would have no way of knowing what the funds were going to be used for by the union.

The employer can only take funds out of a paycheck if they are legally mandated by law, SS, fica, taxes, etc. But for union dues, the employee would have to produce some document asking the employer to distribute certain funds to the union. I really don't think the union can make such a demand upon a person's earnings.

[InsensitiveConservative]

>> The employer can only take funds out of a paycheck if they are legally mandated by law, SS, fica, taxes, etc. But for union dues, the employee would have to produce some document asking the employer to distribute certain funds to the union. I really don't think the union can make such a demand upon a person's earnings.

Yes they can make demands upon your money in Cali. My employer provided me a signature form to authorize money be robbed from my check and given to a union. No siggy no job. I didn't have to join the union but I did have to give them money and my job classification was represented by them. Thank you Gray Davis for that! Thankfully that stint was short lived.

[CyberAnt]

"My employer provided me a signature form to authorize money ..."


You just countered what you said. If the union could make a demand upon your paycheck - you would not have been given a form to fill out.

The fact that you believed that unless you authorized the deduction you would not get the job - that's a criminal offense. I can't think of the term at the moment - but doing that is totally illegal.