Skip to comments.California teachers suing to end mandatory union dues
Posted on 07/01/2013 7:54:01 AM PDT by george76
A group of California teachers is preparing for a Supreme Court battle to overturn forced union dues in a groundbreaking lawsuit filed in June.
For nearly three decades, the Supreme Court has allowed closed-shop unionism, in which public employees must pay dues to labor groups handling collective bargaining negotiations.
The Supreme Court established Beck Rights in 1988 allowing workers to opt out of union dues for political activities, while continuing to pay for union negotiating expenses. The teachers are hoping to take that battle one step further by putting an end to all coercive union dues.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Who would of thought it would be coming from California?
From The Free Beacon.com by Bill McMorris:
“Ten California schoolteachers are challenging Californias policy of forcing all public employees to pay union dues for collective bargaining. The Center for Individual Rights (CIR) is aiding their suit. The CIR views the issue through the lens of the Constitution, rather than as a contest of labor policy.
Our efforts are not anti-union; we are trying to solidify the First Amendment rights of public employees to freely assemble, CIR president Terry Pell said.
The plaintiffs filed a preliminary injunction on Tuesday asking the court to waive the teachers union dues during the ongoing trial. Pell is certain the motion will fail, which is all the better for the plaintiffs because it will fast-track the litigation to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and eventually the Supreme Court.
This is a piece of strategic litigationwere trying to get the issue of compulsory union dues to the Supreme Court as quickly as possible, he said. We know that lower courts cant overrule Supreme Court precedent, but this will expedite us through the system.
The Roberts court opened the door to ending coercive unionism last year when it ruled 5-4 that Service Employees International Union improperly charged non-union members for political activities. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority in Knox v. Service Employees International Union, said the forced dues on non-union members were indefensible
Public-sector unions have the right under the First Amendment to express their views on political and social issues without government interference But employees who choose not to join a union have the same rights, Alito ruled. The First Amendment creates a forum in which all may seek, without hindrance or aid from the State, to move public opinion and achieve their political goals.
The California plaintiffs take this reasoning a step further. They argue that negotiations between teachers unions and state officials are a political act in and of themselves. Paying money to aid in union negotiations, Pell says, violates the rights of teachers who object to union goals of maximizing expensive benefits, such as Californias underfunded pension plan.
All public-sector union bargainingon issues like pensions and pay and leave and seniority rulesare claims on the public Treasury, an inherently political act, Pell said. Some union teachers may think this is a good thing, but our clients say that unions shouldnt be collecting more and more of the public pie while the parents of their students are struggling.
The Obama administrations labor policies have only exacerbated the tension between First Amendment rights and financing the political activities of unions.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled in December 2012 that non-union employees should be forced to pay for lobbying expenses as an apolitical activity, if the costs lead to improvements for all employees.
The NLRB crossed over the line, Pell said. Union collective bargaining or union ads and lobbying that promote increased education spending are overtly political.
The teachers are not alone in their fight. The National Right to Work Foundation, which won the Knox case, is waging a similar battle in Texas where six airline employees filed a class action suit challenging the concept of exclusive bargaining as an encroachment on the freedom of assembly and speech.
Union bosses have abused their extraordinary government-granted power to automatically compel workers to fund their political activities unless workers objecta power granted to no other private organization in our countryfor far too long, Mark Mix, president of National Right to Work, said in a statement. The First Amendment right of workers who refrain from union membership to automatically refrain from paying union dues at all and especially for politics is long overdue.
Dollars to donuts the woman holding that sign is not now voluntarily paying monthly Union dues.
Got my vote.
Each and every single one of them will vote democratic until the day their miserable, sub-human, filthy butts dies. Guarandamteed.
Fantastic, love that story. Get Democrats throwing each other under the bus.
A faint glimmer of light from California? Maybe? Lord knows the left screwed that state up so much it’ll take generations of people of the Golden State to clean that mess up; if they ever can!
Pigs are flying by my window as I read this ...
What great news! Always makes me smile when I hear about teachers realizing that Unions are no help to them OR the children they serve.
Forcing workers to pay union dues to demented Marxist crooks in some States but not others in order to work is a violation of the equal protection clause
Its high time the SCOTUS ended this slavery and gave all Americans the right to work
Its high time the SCOTUS ended this slavery and gave all Americans the right to work
Yeah, whatever happened to freedom of association?
This has been to court before (though I don’t know how it was resolved); I believe it was in relation to the specific portion of the dues that were plowed into Dem campaigns.
What, the union extortion racket ending in CA. No way that will that happen.
Somebody call the dogs. The sheep are getting off the plantation. Isn’t there something written in blood that they are not allowed to speak for themselves?
Can’t do it. Whatever gains are made, a court will overturn it.
Yeah. Hm. Well, when I was studying to be a teacher at Syracuse U in 1956-58, NEA was a professional organization, there was no AFT, nor were there any teacher unions. State standards for teachers was very high, and the universal New York State Regents' Examinations for all 8th graders guaranteed minimum requirements to graduate into high school. Failure kept you back. No excuse. No misplaced compassion.
For the beginning teacher, a Bachelor's degree, with ongoing progress toward a Master's degree was necessary for a temporary license, with a permanent license upon completion within a maximum, under state law, of five years from initial employment. Failure to accomplish this goal resulted in permanent cancellation of the teaching license.
For this kind of teacher qualification we paid almost as high beginning salary as we did for a janitor or low-wage factory employee. There were no idiot teachers, and the PTAs weeded out poor performers in the first three years before tenure upon the fourth year's rehire cut in. After that, there was job security.
With this kind of pay, in an economy where most households did not have two paychecks, generally for a decent life a male teacher only had to moonlight on another job or two to make ends meet.
Also, in those days, THERE WERE NO COLLEGE LOANS. To get an education, you had to give up at least four years of your life's earning span, and pay for it. However, in New York State, the tuition at State operated teacher's college was zero! zip! nada! so entry there was open to students from low-income families who otherwise could not afford it.
Regarding the performance of primary and secondary students, Regents Examinations for each secondary school subject preparatory to college acceptance gave assurance for a college future with a Regents Diploma. Even for a non-Regents course, I saw low-skill students finally get a diploma at 19 or 20 years old after extra coaching. It was a prerequisite to meaningful employment almost anywhere.
At that time, home schooling was not thought of, nor was it needed. Parents were vitally involved in the operation of the local schools, and the teachers answered to the parents--not vice versa. Every school district had a truant officer and, up to one's 16th birthday, irregular attendance put the child into a reform school, with the parent being responsible for the child's attendance or else his incarceration.
Are you beginning to get the point of why unions got a foot in the door, and why we have poor teachers today? IT IS BECAUSE WHEN WE HAD GOOD PROFESSIONALLY PERFORMING TEACHERS, WE WOULD NOT PAY A LIVING WAGE FOR THEM! Now, we've got exactly what we deserve. What did we say then? "Them that can, do; them that can't, teach." What a brilliant estimate of the situation. (/sarc)
It is we who are at fault. We had no gratitude for professionals when we had them. Now we moan because we don't.
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.