Posted on 11/05/2005 11:44:20 AM PST by FairOpinion
SACRAMENTO - The state employees' union can collect extra money to fight two ballot measures from workers who had objected to having their dues used for political purposes, a federal judge ruled Friday.
Eight state employees had sued to stop the Service Employees International Union from collecting an additional two-tenths of 1 percent of their salaries - and from the salaries of all 28,000 nonunion workers - to fight two initiatives pushed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
On Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Morrison C. England Jr. issued a temporary restraining order that prevented the state controller from turning over the funds. On Friday, he lifted that order and refused to issue a permanent injunction the workers' attorney requested.
At issue was whether the special assessment would be used for political purposes. An Aug. 31 letter from SEIU Local 1000 leaders said the additional funds, which the union began collecting in September, would be used to fight Propositions 75 and 76.
Proposition 75 would restrict the use of union dues for political purposes. Proposition 76 would impose a cap on state spending and give the governor powers to cut funding without legislative approval.
At a hearing Friday, England narrowed the debate to include the 4,000 nonunion members who had earlier objected to the use of their dues for political purposes, excluding 24,000 nonunion workers who didn't file objections.
The 4,000 workers had already said their dues were not to go toward political purposes - but union leaders added the extra assessment "solely for political and ideological reasons," said Jim Young, the National Right to Work attorney representing the plaintiffs.
But the union argued that there were some uses of the special assessment that didn't amount to "political purposes," so would be within the rules, said Jeffrey B. Demain, the attorney representing SEIU.
In addition, the union couldn't parse out what was and was not related to fighting the initiatives until the end-of-the-year audit, he said.
England said that he saw no grounds for an injunction on collecting additional money from the 4,000 workers because the amount at stake was relatively small and they had other options to have any improper dues returned.
The union agreed to return the extra dues to the eight employees who sued, which Daniel Beagle, communications director for Local 1000, said amounted to about $10 a month, depending on the employees' salaries.
The special assessment was approved for a 16-month period starting in September and is projected to raise a total of $12 million for the union's campaign against the initiatives.
CA Props: Vote for Reform: YES on 73-78, NO on 79 & 80, NO on Y
====
THE CA PROPOSITIONS; Democratic and Republican activists discuss the propositions
Dean urges voters to reject measures governor supports [California]
Davis opposes Schwarzenegger's reform initiatives
CA: Feinstein to oppose Schwarzenegger's special election initiatives
John Alden (Marin cnty Dem Party chairman): Vote no on Prop 76 - we need better leaders
Top Democratic leaders at Penmar Park rally to 'swat' governor's special election measures. Key note speaker: Angelides, Dem candidate for governor
Liberal groups (Moveon.org) try to link special election to broader GOP agenda
Open letter from Phil Angelides (opposing Schwarzenegger and the Propositions)
McClintock's recommendations for CA Propositions
Summary of Recommendations on the CA Propositions by various organizations and parties
CA: McClintock stumps for governor's ballot initiatives
Ad watch: McClintock in radio spot supporting Prop. 76 (includes actual text)
Supporters of the CA Propositions 74-77 include CA Club for Growth, Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association, Ray Haynes, San Fernando Valley Town Hall Conservatives, Republican Party, and many others. Click on the link for a more comprehensive list.
And you can see from links above who are the ones opposing them: Democrats, Unions, Gray Davis, Howard Dean, Phil Angelides, MoveOn.org, various Dem party chairmen, etc.
I just looked up the judge. He was appointed by President G W Bush in 2002.
England, Morrison C. Jr.
Born 1954 in St. Louis, MO
Federal Judicial Service:
U. S. District Court, Eastern District of California
Nominated by George W. Bush on March 21, 2002, to a seat vacated by Lawrence K. Karlton; Confirmed by the Senate on August 1, 2002, and received commission on August 2, 2002.
Education:
University of the Pacific, B.A., 1977
University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law, J.D., 1983
Professional Career:
U.S. Army Reserve, 1988-present
Private practice, California, 1983-1996
Judge, Sacramento Superior Court for the State of California, 1996-2002
Race or Ethnicity: African American
Gender: Male
http://air.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=2944
More on the judge:
http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/englandbio.htm
Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. was appointed by Governor Pete Wilson as a Sacramento Municipal Court Judge on August 7, 1996. He was elevated by Governor Wilson to the Sacramento Superior Court on August 22, 1997.
===
Well, maybe based on current law, he had to rule the way he did.
All the more reason to pass proposition 75.
With enough publicity this could backfire on the unions and democrats. Use this to rub salt into the wounds of any union members. Tell them that this is exactly what the proposition is trying to protect them from.
W-W-W-WAITASECOND? You're suggesting that our great, heroic champion, George W. Bush would appoint a democrat partisan hack with no respect for the law??? That's inconcievable?
O, yeah, and don't let me forget to leave one of these behind:
(/sarcasm)
How is it that a union can collect dues from nonunion employees?
Our prior governor, Gray-out Davis, signed into law a so-called 'fair share' bill that was sponsored by the government workers, requiring non-union members to pay the union 80% of union dues. I was working in the California State University system at the time, and immediately saw about $40 a month taken out of my paycheck, even though I detest the union. The state of California, for government workers, is essentially a 'closed shop'.
"England said that he saw no grounds for an injunction on collecting additional money from the 4,000 workers because the amount at stake was relatively small and they had other options to have any improper dues returned. "
===
I was trying to give the judge the benefit of the doubt, but this is ridiculous. It's not the amount, it's the principle, he is supposed to rule on.
dr_who_2 provided the explanation for the nomination of this judge on another thread, for which we owe him thans:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1516393/posts?page=2#2
From Dianne Feinstein's (Demagogue-Ca) website:
Senate Unanimously Confirms Morrison England for District Court June 25, 2002 -- Nominee Unanimously Selected by Bipartisan Judicial Advisory Committee -- Washington, DC - The U.S. Senate today unanimously confirmed the nomination of Morrison England to serve as a Federal District Court Judge in the Eastern District of California. "The Senate confirmed Judge England in 96 days. During the Clinton Administration, the average federal judge was approved in 196 days. I think this demonstrates that California's Judicial Advisory Committee is working," Senator Feinstein said. "I am pleased that the Senate approved Judge England, and I am confident that he will be an outstanding jurist for the Eastern District." Judge England's name was forwarded to the White House by California's new bipartisan Judicial Advisory Committee, which Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) established with Gerald Parsky, President Bush's State Chair for judicial appointments.
====
Now isn't this just dandy?! This judge was really handed to President Bush by Feinstein and Boxer!
Why would any even-thinking American want to pay dues to a Union so said Union can use their hard earned money in any manner imaginable -- including political campaigns -- or should I say especially political campaigns??? I don't care whether a person is GOP or RAT money is money is money and we pay enough in taxes, I sure as heck don't want the rest wasted on this kind of thing.
That's why we need to pass Prop. 75.
There, fixed it.
No nerve and no arrogance is this particular ruling. It's simply the law in California and Judge England felt bound to follow it.
I saw that happen at Pacific Bell. The union contract could not force an employee to join the union, but any employee who worked in a "union shop" had dues extracted from each paycheck. The union argued that they provided "benefits" to the non-union employee by virtue of the collective bargaining contract. The PacBell management was too pansy assed to stand up to such ridiculous union demands.
While in the employ of PacBell, I saw a non-union, non-management employee who was prevented from changing job positions by a bunch of CWA thugs who were also in the employ of PacBell.
I worked as a Toll Central Office Equipment engineer. My specialty was equipment removals, retirements and relocations. The other engineers in the group were too lazy to learn how to do that right. I received a frantic call from the wire chief at the Riverside CO. He had 5 ORTT union people from San Bernardino driving to his office daily to sit in front of a test board and drink coffee. They had a "right" to be there under the union contract. They were obnoxious and constantly picked fights with the CWA people in the office. I did an "overnight wonder" to retire the testboard and relocate a small part of it to the CWA part of the office. The part retained was mounted at shoulder level to make it impossible to sit and drink coffee in front of the board. Stand and use it, or find something else to do. End of problem.
Some nerve indeed, and that judge would have to be brain-dead to approve of this.
Everyone who teaches at a Community College in California, as I do, gets 1% (1 percent) taken out of one's pay check, if one joins the teachers' union, AFT. Many of us join, because committee work on campus is earmarked for AFT, and you need committee work, to get tenure. But, if you don't want to join the AFT, then you STILL have to pay the "non-political" or fair-share portion of the fee, as it's called, which is about 42% of the 1%.
The problem is, labor unions are by definition 100% "political" entities. So there is no such thing as the "political" (lobbying) fee and "non-political, fair-share" fee parts. THEY ARE BOTH POLITICAL FEES!!!!
If you object to unions on philosohical grounds, you STILL have to allow them to negotiate your contract, and salary. And you STILL have to pay the "fair-share" ("non-political") portion of the fees, if you want to work in this sector, the edn sector. There is no way to get out of paying something to these communists. The only exemption they will consider, is for one, specific, religion, which I believe is the JW's, a group that opposes unionization on some sort of religious grounds. But, in order to claim that exemption, the AFT makes the procedure is made is very difficult; you must prove you have been with that group for a long time, jump through several hoops, etc. No one really qualifies for it. I've never heard of anyone winning that particular exemption.
In other words, you're screwed.
These communists have us where they want us. Malingering, anti-competitive, corrupt b@st@rds. It's an outrage. I complain to anyone who will listen around campus about it, including my students.... who are the State's future taxpayers.
If you
sorry for the typos. - I should have proofed it a bit. -4L
Unfortunately it appears that (if the polls are right) most people are not aware enough to understand how this affects them.
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.