Posted on 03/29/2006 3:51:02 PM PST by truth49
When Paige Eichelman moved to Washington to teach high school, she was told at orientation she would have to pay for union representation. “I was in shock,” she said. “Was this not the United States of America? Did I have no choice in the matter?”
Unfortunately, Ms. Eichelman would soon discover that it is not that simple. Teachers in school districts represented by the Washington Education Association (WEA) are required by law to pay for the union’s services, even if they are not members. What’s worse, the union can use their dues for political activism they may not support.
This fundamental violation of a teacher’s First Amendment rights to free association and free speech were partially addressed in the U.S. Supreme Court case Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson. The case lays out a process where teachers who don’t wish to join the union can become “agency fee-payers” and obtain a refund for the portion of their dues used for politics and lobbying.
Unfortunately, the “opt-out” procedure can be a complex and expensive process. The union dictates how much money it will refund, and if teachers want to challenge the union’s calculation, they must take a day off and pay for legal representation.
When teacher Sue Hoffman of Seattle attended an arbitration meeting to find out how her dues were being spent, she was given only one hour to look through 12 inches of documentation. After attending a similar hearing on behalf of another teacher, former state Attorney General Ken Eikenberry said, “Having visited the old Soviet Union as a guest of the Procurator General, I believe their administrative hearings were more fair than the [union’s] process.”
The Hudson process alone was not the solution; it simply provided a minimum standard. State legislatures can adopt additional protections for employees.
In Washington, the people are not forced to wait for the legislature to act. In 1992, they went to the polls and approved Initiative 134 by over 72 percent, thereby creating an “opt-in” procedure. I-134 required that agency fee payers individually authorize the union to use their dues for politics. It does not silence the union’s political voice, but simply guarantees that teachers will not be forced to support political activities against their will.
Despite the clear intent of the law, the Washington Education Association continued to spend dues on politics without asking for permission.
After hearing from a number of teachers, the Evergreen Freedom Foundation filed a complaint against the WEA in 2000. The WEA admitted to multiple violations of the law, and Attorney General Christine Gregoire filed a lawsuit against the union. Stating that the WEA “intentionally” ignored the law, a Thurston County Superior Court judge imposed a $590,375 penalty on the union.
After several years in the appeals process (and to the dismay of teachers and others workers), the state Supreme Court ruled on March 16, 2006, that the law requiring affirmative authorization was unconstitutional.
The majority opinion, written by former-Justice Faith Ireland, said the WEA would bear too great an “administrative burden” if it were required to get express permission from teachers to spend their dues on politics.
In a scathing dissent, Justice Richard Sanders argued that the union’s statutory right to collect and spend dues should never trump a teacher’s constitutional rights to free speech. As Sanders wrote, the ruling “turns the First Amendment on its head.” Protecting the free speech rights of even one nonmember is more important than an administrative “burden” imposed on the union.
Most teachers would agree. “WEA officials tried to trample on my rights in an effort to fuel their out-of-control political machine,” said Eichelman.
Thankfully, the Public Disclosure Commission and Attorney General Rob McKenna are appealing the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Hopefully, the U.S. Supreme Court could will teach the Washington Education Association a lesson every first-grader is taught: This is America…and here you must ask permission before taking something that doesn’t belong to you.
Michael Reitz is legal counsel and director of the Labor Policy Center. He came to EFF after working as a legal and legislative assistant with a non-profit organization in the Washington, D.C. area. Michael earned a juris doctorate from Oak Brook College of Law in Fresno, California. He is a member of the Washington and California Bars and is admitted to practice before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
ping
This is a problem at my husband's job at the local courthouse.. his union is massively leftist.. run almost exclusively by hispanic females.. same thing at my federal job if you can believe that..
Not necessarily true. A union member can request that his/her dues be reduced by the percentage of the unions take that they spend on politics. The union of course will not tell you this nor will they look with favor on any member who requests that it be done.
i take it you didn't actually read the article
Sounds to me like a union needs to get booted where it counts - right in the wallet.
How would a law requiring union membership be constitutional in the first place? I've never understood that.
UNIONS = EXTORTION
In other words, if you want to be able to vote in a union election, you must monetarily support the Democrats.
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.