Supreme Court hears teachers' union case (union wants to spend non member dues without permission)

Washington Times ^ | January 11, 2007 | Sean Lengell

[saganite]

A teachers union told the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday it should have the right to spend workers' money for political purposes without their permission -- even if they aren't union members.

The case involves about 3,000 Washington state teachers and other education employees who have chosen not to join the 80,000-member Washington Education Association. Because the nonunion workers are in the bargaining unit and thus represented by the union, they are charged a fee for labor negotiations that affect them.

Washington state in 1992 adopted a campaign-finance law that requires labor unions to annually ask members whether part of their union dues could be used for political purposes. Workers then could request a refund if they said no.

But last year the state's high court struck down the law, saying that requiring the union to get specific consent from each worker was burdensome and infringed on the union's First Amendment rights.

Four nonunion employees challenged the ruling and received support from several anti-union organizations, including the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the Evergreen Freedom Foundation.

The AFL-CIO and Change to Win labor organizations filed a joint brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the Washington Supreme Court.

State of Washington Attorney General Robert McKenna, arguing for the nonunion workers, told the justices yesterday that it's not fair to force employees who opt out of the union to go through the annual process of requesting refunds for the portion of their dues used for political purposes.

[widowithfoursons]

All the lawyers need is one state to set a precedent. This is a slippery slope.

[saganite]

slippery slope bump! Can I bump my own thread?

[Kryptonite]

But last year the state's high court struck down the law, saying that requiring the union to get specific consent from each worker was burdensome and infringed on the union's First Amendment rights.

What about the nonunion workers' First Amendment rights? And the idea that it is too burdensome for the union to process refunds but not too burdensome for the nonunion workers to claim them is absurd.

[Alter Kaker]

I think the State Supreme Court ruled stupidly, but this is simply a question of state law -- I really don't see how constitutional principles are involved one way or the other. The Supremes shouldn't have taken the case. Now they're almost certainly going to affirm the lower court's ruling, which is stupid.

[saganite]

I don't think the Supremes would have taken it if that was the case. They must find it interesting in some way. If I were the union I would be concerned.

[taxesareforever]

Now they're almost certainly going to affirm the lower court's ruling, which is stupid.

I'll agree it was a stupid ruling by the Washington State Supreme Court but they are well known for making stupid rulings. They walk hand in hand with the 9th circus. I don't agree that they will affirm the lower court ruling. I'm betting they are going to overturn it and also give a tongue lashing to the Washingto court. At least I hope they do.

[taxesareforever]

But states have considerable discretion in determining how to protect First Amendment rights, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said. "It seems to me [the] Washington [courts] acted quite properly," he said.

How many ways are there to protect First Amendment Rights? Shouldn't it be the same as how many ways are there to tie a square knot?

[GOP Poet]

Bookmark

[DB]

The real issue is why non union workers are forced to pay union fees. There's where the law has gone seriously wrong.

If they weren't collecting these fees this case would go away. And probably a lot of union "members" too...

[MarkM]

They unions are collecting the fees because them Dems gave them the power to do so. The Dems gave them the power to collect the fees because they know the union bosses will pay back the Democrats with campaign contributions.(both cash and pro Democrat political advertising)

[Wonder Warthog]

"The real issue is why non union workers are forced to pay union fees. There's where the law has gone seriously wrong."

Because Washington is not a "right to work" state. If the "business" has a union contract, then all workers, union members or not, MUST pay union fees.

[DB]

Which is wrong.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Which is wrong."

Oh, I absolutely agree--but that's the law (currently).

I'm from Louisiana (though now in Washington). Louisiana "is" a right to work state (law passed in the mid-1970's--it had been a "union contract" state just like Washington prior to that). Passage of the RTW law gave a MAJOR boost to the state economy.

[chiefqc]

What's the big deal, our elected offical do it every day. They really believe it's their money to do with and benifit them however they please, and the voters should not dare question them.

[chiefqc]

What's the big deal, our elected offical do it every day. They really believe it's their money to do with and benifit them however they please, and the voters should not dare question them.

[libstripper]

But last year the state's high court struck down the law, saying that requiring the union to get specific consent from each worker was burdensome and infringed on the union's First Amendment rights.

That's where the SCOTUS jurisdiction comes from, the Washington SC's decision that the state law infringed on the union's First Amendment rights under the US Constitution.