Posted on 07/13/2015 10:10:59 AM PDT by reaganaut1
abor unions arent like other private organizations. They have lobbied for and gotten powers and privileges that no other groups have, or should have. (For a comprehensive study of those powers and privileges, I suggest Professor Morgan O. Reynolds book.) Crucially, they can compel workers to pay them money if they want to keep their jobs. Then they use much of that money for political activities that fortify the unions position.
That compulsion, however, is under legal attack.
At the end of its recently completed term, the Supreme Court announced a number of the cases it has decided to hear when its new term begins in October. One of those cases is Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association. The key issue is whether public workers represented by unions, including teachers and professors, should be free from having to pay dues that go towards politics unless they affirmatively choose to opt in and agree to pay
As matters now stand in California and other non-Right to Work states, unions only have to allow dissenting workers the opportunity to opt out of paying dues for things other than collective bargaining and related matters. Naturally, the unions have contrived to make it as hard as possible for anyone to do that.
Over many years, the Supreme Court has recognized that compulsory unionism raises First Amendment issues when the dues money extracted from workers is used to fund political speech and activism that the individuals do not favor. In the 1977 Abood case, the Court approved of the opt-out approach, but that precedent seems to be on thin ice after two recent decisions, Knox v. SEIU and Harris v. Quinn.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
They also have the “right” to use violence
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.