National coalition urges U.S. Supreme Court to accept Washington v. WEA case

Evergreen Freedom Foundation ^ | 8-15-06

[truth49]

OLYMPIA—Today the Evergreen Freedom Foundation filed an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, urging the Court to accept review of Washington v. Washington Education Association. At issue is whether individuals can be required to subsidize political speech they oppose. The Washington state Supreme Court ruled in March that a state law requiring unions to obtain permission from teachers before using funds for political purposes was unconstitutional.

“The Washington ruling is a dangerous precedent that undermines free speech rights all across the country,” said Michael Reitz, director of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation’s Labor Policy Center. “The First Amendment protects individuals from coerced political speech, and the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled that unions cannot raid the paychecks of employees to spend money on politics they don’t support.”

The Foundation joined a broad coalition of policy organizations to argue that the U.S. Supreme Court should overturn the Washington ruling. The coalition includes the American Legislative Exchange Council, the country’s largest, voluntary association of state legislators; Cascade Policy Institute (OR); Commonwealth Foundation (PA); Excellent Education for Everyone (NJ); Georgia Public Policy Foundation; Grassroot Institute (HI); Independence Institute (CO); John Locke Foundation (NC); Mackinac Center for Public Policy (MI); Nevada Public Research Institute; Pacific Research Institute (CA); and Pioneer Institute (MA).

The Washington case was opened in 2001, when then-Attorney General Christine Gregoire sued the Washington Education Association (WEA) for admitted, intentional violations of the law. The union was fined $590,000 for these violations.

The state Supreme Court overturned the trial court, ruling that requiring unions to get permission was “too heavy an administrative burden.” The WEA had argued in trial court that it has no fiduciary responsibility to the teachers it represents. The Court agreed with the WEA’s argument that once the union collects dues it is free to spend the money as it pleases.

“No one should be forced to pay for political causes they disagree with,” said Reitz. “We hope the Supreme Court will take up the case and deliver justice for teachers all around the country. Unions must learn a lesson every first-grader learns: You must ask permission before taking something that does not belong to you.”

The Supreme Court is expected to decide in October whether to take the case.

Additional information

Amicus brief of Evergreen Freedom Foundation, et al.
http://www.effwa.org/pdfs/WA_v_WEA_Amicus_brief.pdf

Washington v. Washington Education Association, No. 05-1657
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/05-1657.htm

Davenport, et al, v. Washington Education Association, No. 05-1589
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/05-1589.htm

For more information, please visit www.teachers-v-union.org.

[truth49]

ping

[Jack Black]

How do we impeach these judges? What nerve.

[xzins]

Makes sense to me.

If you're forced to be in the union, and forced to pay dues, then those dues shouldn't be used for political purposes.

Just a question: are union dues tax deductible? Anyone know?

[truth49]

ping

[4woodenboats]

yes, they are, don't know how much.

[Sacajaweau]

I gave up a membership in a fine organization when I found out that part of our dues was going to a PAC......AFTER we had all voted that they couldn't be used that way.

[airborne]

At issue is whether individuals can be required to subsidize political speech they oppose.

That would doom the Unions.

[IslandJeff]

Was the Queen Christine 2004 vote close because she managed to tick off a core constituency?

[sionnsar]

Thanks to truth49 for the ping.

Say WA? Evergreen State ping

FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this ping list.

Ping sionnsar if you see a Washington state related thread.

[xzins]

If union dues are tax deductible and union income is non-taxable, then why are unions allowed by the IRS to endorse candidates and be politically involved, but churches are told that they cannot do so?

[4woodenboats]

In this upside down state, I'm half surprised churches aren't required to be represented....by unions that is.

[M0sby]

Yep...Union dues ARE tax deductible..but only AFTER and IF you have enough of the following Miscellaneous Expenses to exceed 2% of your adjusted gross.  (combined adjusted gross if filing jointly, of course).

AND...you can only deduct that which EXCEEDS the total.

Union dues are generally around 1%.

 

 

Topic 508 - Miscellaneous Expenses

Certain employee expenses are deductible as miscellaneous itemized deductions on Form 1040, Schedule A (PDF). Miscellaneous itemized deductions are subject to a 2% limit, which means you can deduct the amount left after you subtract 2% of your adjusted gross income from the total. Miscellaneous itemized deductions include the deductions for the following expenses:

• Dues paid to professional societies,
• Employment–related educational expenses,
• Expenses of looking for a new job,
• Professional books and magazines,
• Union dues and fees,
• Business–related travel, transportation, meal and entertainment expenses sometimes claimed on Form 2106 (PDF) or Form 2106-EZ (PDF),
• Work clothes and uniforms,
• Certain legal fees to collect taxable income, such as alimony,
• Fees for renting a safe deposit box to store investment–related material; and
• Fees for having a tax return prepared.

---

In my Union, we also pay a few dollars per month for "Education of the Public".

I don't know if this is deductible..and it really TICKS ME OFF...

This is a "FEE" that appeared (it was authorized by our union reps) AFTER campaign finance made it so that Union had to have an "OPT IN" system for their PAC's (political action campaign/committee) rather than an "OPT OUT".

The unions lost TONS of money that they had previously had for political campaigning...TONS OF MONEY!

So, they told the reps, at the rep assembly that they NEEDED this little fee to be able to continue to "Educate the Public" regarding issues that were important to education.

Now, the fact that they ALREADY use my dues for "educating the public" about what they feel important is infuriating to begin with~

But, that they now collect $2/ month for ADDITIONAL politicking drives me batty!

[M0sby]

"If union dues are tax deductible and union income is non-taxable, then why are unions allowed by the IRS to endorse candidates and be politically involved, but churches are told that they cannot do so?"

AH HA!
I am GUESSING it is because they (the unions) ALSO have official PAC's.
They collect $$$ from members (voluntarily) for use within the PAC.
However, they ALSO collect $$$ from us monthly for "EDUCATING THE PUBLIC"...this was authorized by our union reps and can be used for purposes the union feels are important for the public to learn about.
At NO TIME do I think there is a clear line between these THREE possible funding sources.
1.) Union Dues (around 1%)
2.) PAC donations (Whatever one donates)
3.) Education of the public ($2/per member per month)

For example, when the union sent out information opposing I-200 (Tim Eyman-afirmative action)I won't know WHICH "pot of money" paid for this..
They also sent out information regarding everything from car tabs to trap and dog hunting.
They ALWAYS tell their members WHO to vote for (no surprise)but I believe the initiative process (unless it DIRECTLY AFFECTS the amount or way money is spent on education) IS NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS!