Supreme Court Next Year Might Nationalize Right-To-Work
Big Labor: The Supreme Court has accepted a case that may mean the end of compulsory union dues nationwide. Justices busy inventing new rights might actually recognize a long-overdue real one.
A petition to the highest court in the land by Rebecca Friedrichs, nine other California teachers and the Christian Educators Association International asserted the right of public employees to decide for themselves whether to join a union, or whether as nonunion members to pay the equivalent of union dues, which can reach $1,000 annually.
They sued the California Teachers Association, the National Education Association, 10 affiliated local teachers' unions, and local public school officials. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court granted their petition, which is backed by the Center for Individual Rights, a nonprofit law firm specializing in challenging intrusive federal and state government power. A high court decision will come within a year.
As CIR noted, "The suit claims state 'agency shop' laws, which require public employees to pay union dues as a condition of employment, violate well-settled principles of freedom of speech and association."
Teachers who do not support the union should not be compelled by government "to join and financially support an organization with which he or she disagrees."
The Supreme Court has come down on the side of the principle of not forcing workers to fund union political activity before. In the 1988 Beck decision, unions were prohibited from taking noncollective bargaining fees and dues from nonmembers.
In Knox in 2012, it held that nonunion members must have the opportunity to opt in on "special fees" like the $12 million the Service Employees International Union charged for its political fund, amounting to a 25% nonconsensual increase in union dues.
In Knox, it was made clear that unions are muzzling individuals' First Amendment rights — about as explicitly unconstitutional a violation as there can be.
But the court has also, in 1977's Abood ruling, said unions may take nonmembers' money for collective bargaining and related nonideological expenses.
If Friedrichs wins her case next year, it would overturn Abood and mark the end of closed-shop laws in 26 states, forcing public-sector unions to compete for members and financing just like the private sector. In Harris v. Quinn a year ago, a 5-to-4 Supreme Court majority called Abood "questionable" and "anomalous," a sign the 38-year-old decision's days may be numbered.
As CIR President Terry Pell wrote in Forbes in March, under today's system "public employees have to pay their full dues and then, a year later, apply for a refund."
Pell pointed out the difficulty "for individuals to even find out what their union is spending on politics, much less to comply with the precise rules and time limits for obtaining a refund, which means the union gets an interest-free loan to pay for its politics that is likely to be forgiven by members too confused to apply for a refund."
Moreover, in the public sector, as Pell argues, collective bargaining itself is political activity, because it seeks to transfer more taxpayer money to ever-expanding government, in the form of higher salaries and benefits. Obviously, that serves the interest of higher taxes, a more bloated state and a Democrat Party whose overriding purpose is seeking those things.
Requiring membership in any organization as a condition of employment, or making nonmembers pay for its activities, is as un-American as you can get. If unions are so good for workers, why do they need to force workers to join?
If Friedrichs wins, all 50 states instantly become right-to-work states as far as public-sector workers are concerned.
Five justices last week found an imaginary constitutional right for same-sex marriage; the high court can certainly now start protecting the obvious First Amendment right of workers not to join or pay for organizations with which they disagree.
A petition to the highest court in the land by Rebecca Friedrichs, nine other California teachers and the Christian Educators Association International asserted the right of public employees to decide for themselves whether to join a union, or whether as nonunion members to pay the equivalent of union dues, which can reach $1,000 annually.
They sued the California Teachers Association, the National Education Association, 10 affiliated local teachers' unions, and local public school officials. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court granted their petition, which is backed by the Center for Individual Rights, a nonprofit law firm specializing in challenging intrusive federal and state government power. A high court decision will come within a year.
As CIR noted, "The suit claims state 'agency shop' laws, which require public employees to pay union dues as a condition of employment, violate well-settled principles of freedom of speech and association."
Teachers who do not support the union should not be compelled by government "to join and financially support an organization with which he or she disagrees."
The Supreme Court has come down on the side of the principle of not forcing workers to fund union political activity before. In the 1988 Beck decision, unions were prohibited from taking noncollective bargaining fees and dues from nonmembers.
In Knox in 2012, it held that nonunion members must have the opportunity to opt in on "special fees" like the $12 million the Service Employees International Union charged for its political fund, amounting to a 25% nonconsensual increase in union dues.
In Knox, it was made clear that unions are muzzling individuals' First Amendment rights — about as explicitly unconstitutional a violation as there can be.
But the court has also, in 1977's Abood ruling, said unions may take nonmembers' money for collective bargaining and related nonideological expenses.
If Friedrichs wins her case next year, it would overturn Abood and mark the end of closed-shop laws in 26 states, forcing public-sector unions to compete for members and financing just like the private sector. In Harris v. Quinn a year ago, a 5-to-4 Supreme Court majority called Abood "questionable" and "anomalous," a sign the 38-year-old decision's days may be numbered.
As CIR President Terry Pell wrote in Forbes in March, under today's system "public employees have to pay their full dues and then, a year later, apply for a refund."
Pell pointed out the difficulty "for individuals to even find out what their union is spending on politics, much less to comply with the precise rules and time limits for obtaining a refund, which means the union gets an interest-free loan to pay for its politics that is likely to be forgiven by members too confused to apply for a refund."
Moreover, in the public sector, as Pell argues, collective bargaining itself is political activity, because it seeks to transfer more taxpayer money to ever-expanding government, in the form of higher salaries and benefits. Obviously, that serves the interest of higher taxes, a more bloated state and a Democrat Party whose overriding purpose is seeking those things.
Requiring membership in any organization as a condition of employment, or making nonmembers pay for its activities, is as un-American as you can get. If unions are so good for workers, why do they need to force workers to join?
If Friedrichs wins, all 50 states instantly become right-to-work states as far as public-sector workers are concerned.
Five justices last week found an imaginary constitutional right for same-sex marriage; the high court can certainly now start protecting the obvious First Amendment right of workers not to join or pay for organizations with which they disagree.
Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/063015-759764-supreme-court-accepts-landmark-public-sector-union-case.htm#ixzz3efapNETn
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
No comments:
Post a Comment