Union Dues and Union Don’ts
Got a flyer in the mail last week from the Evergreen Freedom Foundation relating to the union dues lawsuit that will be argued before SCOTUS January 10th which I’ve previously blogged about here. It’s got quotes from newspapers around the country (DC, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Las Vegas) supporting the EFF’s position; I think it would perhaps be a more effective flyer for Washington State residents if they had quoted more Washington State papers. They did get the Seattle Times, but the Spokane Spokesman-Review, Tacoma News-Tribune, and Seattle Post-Intelligencer are notable omissions.
One area where the EFF is definitely outmaneuvering the WEA is in getting their case out on this issue. The EFF has set up a dedicated website and a blog to go with it; you have to do some mining to find anything on the WEA’s homepage about the issue. Advantage EFF, but it’s not the court of public opinion that matters here.
One area where the EFF is definitely outmaneuvering the WEA is in getting their case out on this issue. The EFF has set up a dedicated website and a blog to go with it; you have to do some mining to find anything on the WEA’s homepage about the issue. Advantage EFF, but it’s not the court of public opinion that matters here.
Labels: EFF, lawsuit, union dues
posted by Ryan at 6:08 PM
2 Comments:
The issue is not terribly confusing:
Affected teachers, Attorney General, & Evergreen Freedom Foundation position:
Since banning collective bargaining for public employees is Constitutional, and
Since banning union security (mandatory fee) clauses is Constitutional, then
State initiatives/laws may also add tougher rules for the collection and use of those mandatory fees collected from non-association members.
NEA/WEA position:
The Hudson and Abood type decisions (brought by affected teachers against the union) are all actually decisions creating protections for the unions' right to collect and use funds. They create limits on government which should preempt further regulation (other than outright bans which remain Constitutional).
I can see why the US Supreme Court would need to weigh in. However, it seems to me that the union position is shaky.
Perhaps it would be analgous the Supreme Court ruling that states could Constitutionally ban or legalize marijuana use, but if they legalized it they couldn't extensively regulate it.
Jim--Yep!
Anon--The flaw in your argument is that collecive bargaining for public employees (in this case, teachers) is allowed and protected by Washington law.
And I'm with Jim on this one; the Hudson packet isn't that hard to fill out.
Post a Comment
<< Home