Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: You don't think Californians - or at least some of them - are getting it do you? « previous next »
Page: 1 2

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46234
Online
« : July 01, 2013, 10:52:40 PM »

A Political Act
California teachers suing to end mandatory union dues
   
AP
     
BY: Bill McMorris 
July 1, 2013 5:00 am

A group of California teachers is preparing for a Supreme Court battle to overturn forced union dues in a groundbreaking lawsuits filed in June.

For nearly three decades, the Supreme Court has allowed closed-shop unionism, in which public employees must pay dues to labor groups handling collective bargaining negotiations.

The Supreme Court established Beck Rights in 1988 allowing workers to opt out of union dues for political activities, while continuing to pay for union negotiating expenses. The teachers are hoping to take that battle one step further by putting an end to all coercive union dues.

Ten California schoolteachers are challenging California’s policy of forcing all public employees to pay union dues for collective bargaining. The Center for Individual Rights (CIR) is aiding their suit. The CIR views the issue through the lens of the Constitution, rather than as a contest of labor policy.

“Our efforts are not anti-union; we are trying to solidify the First Amendment rights of public employees to freely assemble,” CIR president Terry Pell said.

The plaintiffs filed a preliminary injunction on Tuesday asking the court to waive the teachers’ union dues during the ongoing trial. Pell is certain the motion will fail, which is all the better for the plaintiffs because it will “fast-track” the litigation to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and eventually the Supreme Court.

“This is a piece of strategic litigation—we’re trying to get the issue of compulsory union dues to the Supreme Court as quickly as possible,” he said. “We know that lower courts can’t overrule Supreme Court precedent, but this will expedite us through the system.”

The Roberts court opened the door to ending coercive unionism last year when it ruled 5-4 that Service Employees International Union improperly charged non-union members for political activities. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority in Knox v. Service Employees International Union, said the forced dues on non-union members were “indefensible”

“Public-sector unions have the right under the First Amendment to express their views on political and social issues without government interference … But employees who choose not to join a union have the same rights,” Alito ruled. “The First Amendment creates a forum in which all may seek, without hindrance or aid from the State, to move public opinion and achieve their political goals.”

The California plaintiffs take this reasoning a step further. They argue that negotiations between teachers unions and state officials are a political act in and of themselves. Paying money to aid in union negotiations, Pell says, violates the rights of teachers who object to union goals of maximizing expensive benefits, such as California’s underfunded pension plan.

“All public-sector union bargaining—on issues like pensions and pay and leave and seniority rules—are claims on the public Treasury, an inherently political act,” Pell said. “Some union teachers may think this is a good thing, but our clients say that unions shouldn’t be collecting more and more of the public pie while the parents of their students are struggling.”

The Obama administration’s labor policies have only exacerbated the tension between First Amendment rights and financing the political activities of unions.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled in December 2012 that non-union employees should be forced to pay for lobbying expenses as an “apolitical” activity, if the costs lead to improvements for all employees.

“The NLRB crossed over the line,” Pell said. “Union collective bargaining or union ads and lobbying that promote increased education spending are overtly political.”

The teachers are not alone in their fight. The National Right to Work Foundation, which won the Knox case, is waging a similar battle in Texas where six airline employees filed a class action suit challenging the concept of exclusive bargaining as an encroachment on the freedom of assembly and speech.

“Union bosses have abused their extraordinary government-granted power to automatically compel workers to fund their political activities unless workers object—a power granted to no other private organization in our country—for far too long,” Mark Mix, president of National Right to Work, said in a statement. “The First Amendment right of workers who refrain from union membership to automatically refrain from paying union dues at all and especially for politics is long overdue.”

Things sure are getting strange...

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #1 : July 02, 2013, 03:31:29 PM »

If I work for a company that funds a PAC that attacked progressive candidates in the last election, then my productivity contributed to raising the funds that were used to fund political action that I was opposed to. How about me make campaign contributions from all private corporations and organizations illegal rather than picking and choosing which ones we want to attack on the issue?


spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7109
Offline
« #2 : July 02, 2013, 03:58:49 PM »

If I work for a company that funds a PAC that attacked progressive candidates in the last election, then my productivity contributed to raising the funds that were used to fund political action that I was opposed to. How about me make campaign contributions from all private corporations and organizations illegal rather than picking and choosing which ones we want to attack on the issue?

You don't have to work for that company. In California you HAVE to join the Union and pay dues or you don't have a job.

Bucfucious

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3797
Offline
« #3 : July 02, 2013, 04:11:55 PM »

"How about me make campaign contributions from all private corporations and organizations illegal rather than picking and choosing which ones we want to attack on the issue?"

Small scale bribery is still illegal, but large scale bribery has been deemed "free speech."

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #4 : July 02, 2013, 04:46:59 PM »

If I work for a company that funds a PAC that attacked progressive candidates in the last election, then my productivity contributed to raising the funds that were used to fund political action that I was opposed to. How about me make campaign contributions from all private corporations and organizations illegal rather than picking and choosing which ones we want to attack on the issue?

You don't have to work for that company. In California you HAVE to join the Union and pay dues or you don't have a job.

And you don't have to work for a unionized company. In fact, you have the "right" not to.


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #5 : July 02, 2013, 04:47:47 PM »

"How about me make campaign contributions from all private corporations and organizations illegal rather than picking and choosing which ones we want to attack on the issue?"

Small scale bribery is still illegal, but large scale bribery has been deemed "free speech."

QFT.


spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7109
Offline
« #6 : July 02, 2013, 04:48:40 PM »

If I work for a company that funds a PAC that attacked progressive candidates in the last election, then my productivity contributed to raising the funds that were used to fund political action that I was opposed to. How about me make campaign contributions from all private corporations and organizations illegal rather than picking and choosing which ones we want to attack on the issue?

You don't have to work for that company. In California you HAVE to join the Union and pay dues or you don't have a job.

And you don't have to work for a unionized company. In fact, you have the "right" not to.

You do if you're a teacher in California.

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #7 : July 02, 2013, 05:02:53 PM »

If I work for a company that funds a PAC that attacked progressive candidates in the last election, then my productivity contributed to raising the funds that were used to fund political action that I was opposed to. How about me make campaign contributions from all private corporations and organizations illegal rather than picking and choosing which ones we want to attack on the issue?

You don't have to work for that company. In California you HAVE to join the Union and pay dues or you don't have a job.

And you don't have to work for a unionized company. In fact, you have the "right" not to.

You do if you're a teacher in California.

No non-union, private schools in California?


dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46234
Online
« #8 : July 02, 2013, 09:43:10 PM »

If I work for a company that funds a PAC that attacked progressive candidates in the last election, then my productivity contributed to raising the funds that were used to fund political action that I was opposed to. How about me make campaign contributions from all private corporations and organizations illegal rather than picking and choosing which ones we want to attack on the issue?

You don't have to work for that company. In California you HAVE to join the Union and pay dues or you don't have a job.

And you don't have to work for a unionized company. In fact, you have the "right" not to.

You do if you're a teacher in California.

No non-union, private schools in California?
Would have to go private schools where union participation is a requirement for all tax payer/state run schools.  Odd to get that education and then be told you have to continue to pay to be allowed to be employed if working for the government that represents the people.  Maybe they have their own Karen Lewis as the head of their union.

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #9 : July 03, 2013, 12:36:39 AM »

If I work for a company that funds a PAC that attacked progressive candidates in the last election, then my productivity contributed to raising the funds that were used to fund political action that I was opposed to. How about me make campaign contributions from all private corporations and organizations illegal rather than picking and choosing which ones we want to attack on the issue?

You don't have to work for that company. In California you HAVE to join the Union and pay dues or you don't have a job.

And you don't have to work for a unionized company. In fact, you have the "right" not to.

You do if you're a teacher in California.

No non-union, private schools in California?
Would have to go private schools where union participation is a requirement for all tax payer/state run schools.  Odd to get that education and then be told you have to continue to pay to be allowed to be employed if working for the government that represents the people.  Maybe they have their own Karen Lewis as the head of their union.

I see. When it comes to a progressive working for a corporation that funds conservative candidates, your answer is "tough tits. working there is a choice. find another job." However, when it comes to working for a job with a unionized work force, then all of the sudden we are concerned about a right to work at that specific place rather than being forced to find alternate employment more agreeable to your sensibilities.

The bottom line is that unions funding Democrats is no different than Koch industries, or whoever else funding conservative candidates. In either case, there are employees that are forced to work at a place that actively works contrary to their political values. By villainizing unions for doing something that virtually every privately owned corporation does, you are creating a rather blatantly obvious double standard. The solution seems simple. Eliminate the activity of corporations or organizations funding political action altogether. Stop counting unions and corporations as people and stop counting money as speech. Let elections be funded through individual donations made by actual people and capped at a certain limit. That way unions can be only in the union business, and corporations can be only in whatever their businesses are. Problem solved.


dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46234
Online
« #10 : July 03, 2013, 08:58:53 AM »

If I work for a company that funds a PAC that attacked progressive candidates in the last election, then my productivity contributed to raising the funds that were used to fund political action that I was opposed to. How about me make campaign contributions from all private corporations and organizations illegal rather than picking and choosing which ones we want to attack on the issue?

You don't have to work for that company. In California you HAVE to join the Union and pay dues or you don't have a job.

And you don't have to work for a unionized company. In fact, you have the "right" not to.

You do if you're a teacher in California.

No non-union, private schools in California?
Would have to go private schools where union participation is a requirement for all tax payer/state run schools.  Odd to get that education and then be told you have to continue to pay to be allowed to be employed if working for the government that represents the people.  Maybe they have their own Karen Lewis as the head of their union.

I see. When it comes to a progressive working for a corporation that funds conservative candidates, your answer is "tough tits. working there is a choice. find another job." However, when it comes to working for a job with a unionized work force, then all of the sudden we are concerned about a right to work at that specific place rather than being forced to find alternate employment more agreeable to your sensibilities.

The bottom line is that unions funding Democrats is no different than Koch industries, or whoever else funding conservative candidates. In either case, there are employees that are forced to work at a place that actively works contrary to their political values. By villainizing unions for doing something that virtually every privately owned corporation does, you are creating a rather blatantly obvious double standard. The solution seems simple. Eliminate the activity of corporations or organizations funding political action altogether. Stop counting unions and corporations as people and stop counting money as speech. Let elections be funded through individual donations made by actual people and capped at a certain limit. That way unions can be only in the union business, and corporations can be only in whatever their businesses are. Problem solved.
Even simpler - right to work and not have a union entitled to take money from one's check.  Then the worker can do what he/she wants to with their money. 

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
« #11 : July 03, 2013, 01:03:11 PM »

If I work for a company that funds a PAC that attacked progressive candidates in the last election, then my productivity contributed to raising the funds that were used to fund political action that I was opposed to.


WOW, that is taking "apples and oranges" to a whole new level.

There is a huge and massive difference between your highly convoluted and indirect "my productivity contributed to raising the funds that were used to fund political action" and "we are TAKING money right out of your check, without asking, to fund a separate organization that you don't directly work for, but that does occasionally represent you"

You are comparing forced taxation by a non-governmental organization to working for a company that has some political agendas you disagree with.



How about we {edit} make campaign contributions from all private corporations and organizations illegal rather than picking and choosing which ones we want to attack on the issue?

Now you are talking. I'd be for a law that says only organizations that register as Political Lobbying Orgs can contribute to any campaign. AARP, NRA, NAACP, PETA, etc. can take donations and make contributions. Private individuals can make contributions. Corps, LLCs, NPOs for purposes other than political activism (like United Way or Humane Society) can't.




John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
« #12 : July 03, 2013, 01:32:20 PM »

The bottom line is that unions funding Democrats is no different than Koch industries, or whoever else funding conservative candidates.

Yes it is different IF you have union dues TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM YOUR PAYCHECK WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION.

It is a difference of

(working for Koch) "wow, my hard work is contributing 0.0000000000000001% to Koch's bottom line and they are using some small part of that to fund politicians I don't like"

(union worker) "Wow, I really need this paycheck cause my car payment is due" looks at check "WTF?????  MINUS $90 for friggin UNION DUES!!! Now I'm screwed and my car might get repo'd"






And what if you are conservative and you CHOSE to work for Koch Industries- Flint Hill Resources LP plant in Michigan and you are FORCED to be a member of International Chemical Workers Union and pay dues to that union which contributes to liberal candidates??



In either case, there are employees that are forced to work at a place that actively works contrary to their political values.

again NOT TRUE.

In the case of Koch, you are not "forced" to work there by the govt. or by Koch. Maybe by economic circumstances you are forced to work there temporarily, but that is more akin to getting upset by acts of god/nature.

In the case of the Union, you don't work or chose to work FOR THE UNION, you work for a separate company or for the govt. But you are FORCED to contribute to them


By villainizing unions for doing something that virtually every privately owned corporation does, you are creating a rather blatantly obvious double standard. The solution seems simple. Eliminate the activity of corporations or organizations funding political action altogether. Stop counting unions and corporations as people and stop counting money as speech. Let elections be funded through individual donations made by actual people and capped at a certain limit. That way unions can be only in the union business, and corporations can be only in whatever their businesses are. Problem solved.


My screen name is John Galt? and I endorse this message.


John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
« #13 : July 03, 2013, 01:35:48 PM »

Even simpler - right to work and not have a union entitled to take money from one's check.  Then the worker can do what he/she wants to with their money.

Why not do both?

Right to Work AND eliminate Corporate & Org political funding. Win-win-win


Bucfucious

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3797
Offline
« #14 : July 03, 2013, 01:41:46 PM »

Not sure it's the same in California, but here you don't actually have to join the union and pay dues even at a union site. You do have to contribute to the pension and every division except the one I steward also has the Health and Welfare contribution of $5.35 per hour taken directly out of their check. Also, non-union members do not get to vote. At any rate, there are quite a few variations on how specific unions operate.

  Page: 1 2
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: You don't think Californians - or at least some of them - are getting it do you? « previous next »
:  

Hide Tools Show Tools