Skip to comments.LANDMARK FORCES CALIFORNIA TEACHERS UNION TO REFUND POLITICAL FUNDS TO TEACHERS
Posted on 10/27/2005 9:16:32 AM PDT by wcdukenfield
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT:
October 27, 2005
(LEESBURG, VA) Landmark Legal Foundation won a significant victory recently when it forced the California Teachers Union (CTA) to offer full refunds to nonunion, fee paying teachers for a special $60 per teacher assessment that the union is using to fund a $50 million campaign to defeat ballot initiatives in the November 5 special election.
Landmark filed a complaint on September 14 with the California Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) documenting how the unions special assessment would be used to retire a $50 million debt amassed for the sole purpose of financing a campaign to defeat initiatives 75, 76 and others on the November ballot. Under state law, teachers who are not members of the union, but who are required to pay a fee for collective bargaining representation, are allowed to seek a refund of any part of their fee used for political purposes. After Landmark filed its complaint, the CTA notified nonmember teachers that the full $60 surcharge will be refunded to all fee payers who request it by November 15, 2005.
Non-CTA teachers who had no say in deciding the unions positions on these ballot initiatives shouldnt be made to pay for the unions campaign against them, said Mark R. Levin, Landmarks president. Calling this assessment debt retirement for a debt that is being used exclusively for political activity wouldnt pass the smell test, and the union leadership knew it. They made the refund offer because they simply had no choice. Otherwise, it would have been a case of confiscation without representation.
Earlier complaints by Landmark against the National Education Association (NEA) for its unreported use of tax exempt member and fee payer dues for political purposes resulted in an ongoing full-field audit by the Internal Revenue Service and an ongoing investigation by the U.S. Department of Labor. Landmark is a public interest law firm founded in 1976 with offices in Kansas City, MO and Leesburg, VA.
Mark Levin for President '08!!!!!!!!!!!!
awesome. I'm sure union asskissers like Boxer and Pelosi are very saddened by this news.
Levin and Landmark, unlike Judicial Watch, who has collected $75+ million over the years, actually wins cases.
No union member (or employee of a "union shop") should be required to pay a nickel for any political activities.
O Great One, what would we do without you?
Landmark Legal Foundation is presently engaged in a two front battle the most ambitious and arguably the most important weve ever faced. It is quite literally a battle for America's future.
Were confronting the nations chief obstacle to substantive education reform - the NEA - not only at the national level, but in the states where the union spends millions in tax exempt funds on unreported and hence illegal political activities.
In the coming months we will launch the first wave of complaints against key NEA state affiliates. In addition, the Foundation will undertake a major outreach initiative to regional, national and specialty media and key opinion leaders to garner attention and caste the spectrum of public debate where it belongs on the actions of a union that has no respect for the law. Landmarks complaints and public outreach efforts will bring to the state unions the same unremitting and unwelcome scrutiny from governmental agencies and the media that has resulted in a full IRS field audit and Labor Department investigation of the national union.
We are also challenging what may be the most insidious legacy of modern liberalism judicial activism and the radical judges who use it to advance an extremist social agenda.
Americas courts have become the final bulwark for the advocates of big government who have been defeated time after time at the ballot box at the local, state and federal level. Through an aggressive and multifaceted public education campaign, Landmarks Judicial Reform Initiative is helping to reshape the public debate and crystallize public sentiment about the mission of Americas courts and the proper limits on their authority.
With the Roberts Nomination to the the Supreme Court currently before the Senate as well as the ongoing controversy about filibusters in the Senate over nominees to federal district and appeals courts, this has become one of Landmarks highest priorities.
It is not an overstatement to say that we are at one of the most pivotal junctures in Landmarks history.
Typical of unions, the "membership" is represented by dictatorial leaders who have no consideration for their "members" desires. Gimme your money and shut up. I know better than you what is good for you!
Awesome. I hope Prop 75 passes. I admire the Landmark Legal lawyers.
Great news! I hope this bankrupts them!
I'm not too clear on how this works. How can a union require a fee from someone who is not a member?
Mark Levin for SCOTUS.
Mark Levin for sainthood.
When are we ever going to get politicians with this kind of chutzpah?
Illegally. It requires complicity within the administration of whoever cuts the checks (I don't know if that is at the State or local level).
Yep, that's how bad it is.
Mark is Jewish (I think) and I don't believe they have saints..............Maybe nominated for MR. Congeniality!........
This is good but it only goes half way. NO union member should HAVE to pay anything for political purposes.
There would be MASS SUICIDES in DU and DNC............Pass the Grape Kool-aid?......
Closed shop rules.
Wow! Lawyers I could maybe respect - even like. Great news!
Ohhhhh - that's gotta hurt!
>>>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)).
Woo-hoo! Bumpus Maximus!
Congratulations on this victory.
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.
OK, got it. Thanks for the clarification.
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.
The unions may have demanded it, but somebody has to do set up the accounting and deduct the money from the paycheck.
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.
>> 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.
"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.
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.