Home

 

LATEST NEWS

TEACHERS VS. UNIONS AT SUPREME COURT

Opinion - Editorial | October 19 , 2006
Unions were initially created to be a voice for workers, protecting them against poor working conditions and totalitarian management.  To their credit, factory workplaces were made safer for workers after the inception of industrial labor unions. However, today’s teacher labor unions do little to truly advance the teaching profession.  Industrial-style unionism does not promote professionalism, nor has it helped teachers achieve the level of respect or compensation that other professionals enjoy.  In fact, many would say that “unionism” and “professionalism” are opposite and exclusive approaches shaping the future of the teaching workforce.
...read more

UNION DUES AND DON'TS

Opinion - Editorial | October 29 , 2006
Oct. 29--A fundamental American freedom is being able to spend -- or not spend -- one's own money on political campaigns, for persons or initiatives. Money forcibly taken from a person to support a candidate or initiative that the person opposes is a form of tyranny. In early November, the U.S. Supreme Court will begin hearings on an important case, Washington vs. Washington Education Association. In it, the state of Washington is defending Proposition 134, which its voters passed with 72 percent of the vote in 1992, against a powerful union, the WEA. The appeal is to overturn a March 2006 ruling by the Washington state Supreme Court that Prop. 134 is unconstitutional.Under state and federal law, even nonunion teachers must be represented by the WEA for collective bargaining purposes on their teaching contracts, and have dues for that purpose deducted from their paychecks. That's not at issue.At issue are teachers who are not members of the WEA, and whether the WEA can take additional money from nonmembers' paychecks to be used for political purposes. Under Prop. 134, this is not allowed. Instead, a nonunion teacher must "affirmatively authorize" use of the money for union political activities.Michael Reitz, director and legal analyst for the Labor Policy Center of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, a conservative Washington state think tank that is helping the workers, said that Supreme Court case law already allows a nonunion employee to opt out of the use of political dues for political purposes by a public or private union. But the employee must take the first action, requesting a refund of the money.Prop. 134, if upheld, would reverse the process, making the union ask nonunion employees first if their money can be used for political purposes. This is important because many employees simply don't realize that the money is being deducted from their paychecks.This case is especially important to Californians because Washington's Prop. 134 is similar to California's Proposition 75, which voters defeated in November 2005 but which could come back in another form on a future ballot. Prop. 75 would have required all employees represented by public-employee unions -- members and non-members -- to give their prior consent before their union dues were used for political purposes.The U.S. Supreme Court will begin briefings on the case Nov. 8 and likely will decide the case next year. We urge the court to uphold Prop. 134. Coercion should play no role in raising money for political campaigns.Copyright (c) 2006, Appeal-Democrat, Marysville, Calif. Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Business News. For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.

 

IS THE FIRST AMENDMENT A LICENSE TO STEAL?

This week the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that pits a First Amendment claim by unions against a First Amendment claim by employees. In Washington state, government employees are required to pay an "agency shop fee," whether or not they are union members, ostensibly to cover the costs of collective bargaining. The Supreme Court has held that such money cannot be used to support political causes if an employee objects, since that would amount to compelled speech.
...read more

 

SUPREME COURT TAKES UNION FEES CASE

The Supreme Court just granted cert. in two consolidated cases, Washington v. Washington Education Association and Davenport v. Washington Education Association.  In 1992, Washington voters adopted an initiative that required unions to obtain affirmative consent ("opt-in") from nonmembers before spending any of the nonmembers' fees on political activity.  This is a sharp contrast from the typical "opt-out" rule for dues objectors

read more...

 

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060926/scotus_union_fees.html?.v=3

AP
Supreme Court to Hear Union Fee Case
Tuesday September 26, 10:16 am ET
By Mark Sherman, Associated Press Writer

 

Supreme Court Jumps Into Dispute Over Labor Union Fees in Washington State

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to decide whether public employee unions must get special permission before spending some workers' dues on political causes.

Justices accepted an appeal from the state of Washington that involves fees paid to the Washington Education Association by teachers who decline to join the union.

Those workers still can be charged fees by the union to help pay for labor negotiations that affect them. But they can't be forced to pay for the union's political activism.

At issue is whether the union needs teachers to say "yes" before the fees can be used for political causes or whether the fees can be used for that purpose unless the teachers say "no."

The Washington Supreme Court overturned a 1992 law that required unions to get the consent of each worker and refund money to everyone who did not agree.

The court said the union's annual offer to reduce the fees for any nonmember who registers an objection to the use of fees for political purposes is sufficient.

The state court said that forcing the union to seek permission from each worker violated the union's free speech rights.

The three dissenters in the case, however, said the ruling "turned the First Amendment on its head," by valuing the rights of the union above those of individuals.

Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna said the decision conflicted with prior court cases upholding similar laws.

The union is the state's largest teachers union. Fewer than 5 percent of the 80,000 people the union represents choose not to be members, the union said.

Arguing against the appeal, the Washington union said the state law is the only one in the nation that restricts otherwise lawful union spending.

The case stemmed from a complaint filed by the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, a conservative think tank based in Olympia, Wash. The foundation has fought for years with the union over the collection of fees from workers who choose not to join.

The cases are Gary Davenport v. Washington Education Association, 05-1589, and Washington v. Washington Education Association, 05-1657.

U.S. SUPREME COURT TO HEAR WASHINGTON CASES ON USE OF UNION DUES FOR POLITICS
Press Releases | September 26, 2006
WASHINGTON— Today the U.S. Supreme Court announced it will review the cases of Washington v. Washington Education Association and Davenport v. Washington Education Association in its upcoming session, giving hope to millions of teachers across the country that they may no longer be forced to pay union dues that fund political causes with which they disagree. “This is excellent news and a first step toward securing the First Amendment free speech rights of teachers and 17 million union-represented employees across the country,” said Michael Reitz of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF), an initial complainant in the case. “We look forward to the oral arguments and are optimistic that the Court will restore justice for teachers.”
...read more

 No First Amendment cases yet on Court docket
EFF in the News | The First Amendment Center | September 26, 2006

...The Washington attorney general accused the teachers’ union of violating the new rule and won a judgment in court, but the Washington Supreme Court said the opt-in requirement “upset the balance between nonmembers’ rights and the rights of the union.” In Washington v. Washington Education Association, the state asks the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse. Michael Reitz, the director of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation’s Labor Policy Center, which supports the state in the case, says, “Unions must learn the same lesson every first-grader learns: You must ask permission before taking something that does not belong to you.”

...read more

 Supreme Court to Hear Union Fee Case
EFF in the News | Associated Press | September 26, 2006
Supreme Court Jumps Into Dispute Over Labor Union Fees in Washington State
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to decide whether public employee unions must get special permission before spending some workers' dues on political causes. Justices accepted an appeal from the state of Washington that involves fees paid to the Washington Education Association by teachers who decline to join the union. ...The case stemmed from a complaint filed by the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, a conservative think tank based in Olympia, Wash. The foundation has fought for years with the union over the collection of fees from workers who choose not to join.
...read more

 

 

 









Download Case Summary

Return to Case Info

About this site


Labor Policy Center
PO Box 552 Olympia, WA 98507, Telephone: 360-956-3482, Email: mreitz@effwa.org
© Copyright EFF 2006. All Rights Reserved.