Supreme Court Case Could Threaten Big Labor’s Ability to Deduct from Public Employee Paychecks
by Education Action GroupWASHINGTON, D.C. – It’s no secret that Big Labor is dependent on dues and fees automatically withdrawn from the payroll checks of union members and non-members alike.
The automatic deductions funnel millions of dollars into public sector union coffers each year, with a portion frequently going toward partisan political causes and liberal candidates who promise to preserve or expand the unions’ forced dues racket.
But this vicious cycle is finally being challenged in states and municipalities around the nation. Perhaps the most important challenge, Knox vs. Service Employees International Union, was heard earlier this month by the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.
The case is one of a growing number of examples of how public employees, including public school teachers, are pushing back against forced union dues – something many consider a violation of their First Amendment rights. American citizens should not be forced to financially support an organization or political causes they don’t agree with, union objectors rightly contend.
By forcing members and non-members to subsidize its radical political agenda, Big Labor may have finally cooked its Golden Goose.
SEIU wants to run from the case
The Supreme Court case stems from a “special assessment” that was automatically withdrawn from union and non-union state employees’ checks in 2005 to help defeat a ballot proposal in California that would have made it illegal to force employees to pay dues that would be used for political purposes.
The plaintiffs, who are non-union members who pay a reduced fee in lieu of union dues, claim their rights were violated when they were charged more than their regular fees to support a union political effort.
They filed a lawsuit with the help of the National Right to Work Foundation, and a federal district court ordered SEIU to pay some of their money back, records show.
SEIU appealed the decision, the appeals court sided with the union, and the objecting non-union state employees took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Then a funny thing happened. The union decided that it didn’t want to pursue the case anymore, refunded the employees the full amount of the “special assessment,” and is now arguing that the case is moot because there is no longer a claim, records show.
The NRTWF attorneys representing the employees say the case is still important because it would settle the question of whether union officials must give employees a chance to object to a special assessment before the union sticks its grubby hand in the cookie jar. Plus, the union never really acknowledged wrongdoing or promised not to do it again, NRTWF attorney James Young argued.
During the hearing, several justices keyed in on an important question: Why does the union want to drop its case now that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear it?
SEIU attorneys contend it’s because the employees’ money has been repaid in full, the union has complied with the district court’s original order, and everything is now resolved.
We doubt very much that’s the case.
Union leaders fear legal precedent
We believe that the real reason the union wants to run away from the case is to avoid the chance of a precedent-setting ruling that would inhibit its legal ability to take money from members and non-members to support political causes.
The union probably also fears a more expansive ruling, which could deny the right of public sector unions to automatically deduct dues from paychecks under any circumstances.
It’s not clear when the court will issue a ruling in the case.
“In essence, the union has to acknowledge wrongdoing before a case is moot, and they’ve never done that,” said Young, the attorney representing the plaintiffs.
“They fear what this court will do, and I think they have reason to,” Young said, adding that a ruling could potentially have broad implications for how unions charge members and non-members.
A veteran labor attorney in Wisconsin, who has been representing school boards for decades, recently told EAG that public sector union leaders are mostly concerned with preserving the flow of dues money, and preserving the right to use that money for political causes they believe in.
He noted that many teachers unions across Wisconsin scrambled last year to extend their collective bargaining agreements with school boards. They wanted to get that done before the implementation of Act 10, which made it illegal for schools to deduct union dues from employee paychecks once the union contracts expire.
Union leaders in many districts were willing to sacrifice many employee perks to get their contracts extended. The one perk they desperately wanted to preserve was automatic dues deduction from paychecks, according to the attorney.
“All of a sudden they would call me and say, ‘Let’s settle this contract,’” the attorney said. “It’s all about the kids, right? The kids? Ha! They sold their members out for dues.”
Employees don’t pay when it’s not required
There is a reason union officials are vigorously fighting to preserve the automatic dues deduction system.
Washington Post columnist George Will laid it out in an editorial during Big Labor’s battle over Act 10 in Wisconsin last year.
“After Colorado in 2001 required public employees unions to have annual votes reauthorizing collection of dues, membership in the Colorado Association of Public Employees declined 70 percent. In 2005, Indiana stopped collecting dues from unionized public employees; in 2011, there are 90 percent fewer dues-paying members,” Wills wrote.
“In Utah, the end of automatic dues deductions for political activities in 2001 caused teachers’ payments to fall 90 percent. After a similar law passed in 1992 in Washington State, the percentage of teachers making such contributions declined from 82 to 11.”
Perhaps union members are hesitant to voluntarily pay because they don’t believe the benefits they receive from their unions are worth the dues. Perhaps it’s because they don’t like their union’s aggressive political activities and negotiating tactics.
Regardless, the SEIU case and Right-to-Work legislation pending in numerous states is turning up the heat on Big Labor’s forced dues racket.
And that’s encouraging progress for public employees who have been forced to fund Big Labor’s antics for far too long.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
127 Comments
Let's hope that the SCOTUS rules that this government sponsored extortion of the taxpayers money to unions is stopped cold.
of course they're scared.
Mandatory dues collected by the government so privately owned and controlled firms (the unions) can force political agendas seems unconstitutional for a variety of reasons. Seems there was a game of 'chicken' here,and the unions lost. Even Breyer might vote against this one.
It needs to happen. No reason to support progressive/communist/ant-American ideals by coercion; this is government supported coercion and it needs to STOP…
We have the right to work and the right to keep more of our money. Down with unions, every last one of them!
It will probably be a 5-4 split with Justice Kennedy being the swing vote.
If Obama gets a second term and put more Progressives on the Supreme Court, there will be nothing stopping them.
Excellent. No one should pay for something for which he receives little if any benefit. Take away the money and unions lose their political influence.
I hope the SCOTUS does the right thing and stops the automatic payment of forced dues from private accounts and or the employer transmittal of dues.
FOLLOW THE MONEY: The lunatic-left d-cRAT socialists get HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS in campaign contributions from their union political partners, and they will do everything possible (including criminal actions) to keep the money flowing from taxpayers- to -public-sector union members- to -public-sector unions- to -d-cRAT socialists' campaigns. This is the corrupt money trail that MUST BE STOPPED if America is to remain a real democracy.
Here’s a breakdown of what some of the top unions donated to the Democratic Party in the 2008 and 2010 election cycles:
* The AFL-CIO, whose president Richard Trumka is orchestrating much of the protests in Madison this week, donated $1.2 million to Democrats in 2008 and $900,000 in 2010.
* The American Federation of State, County and Municipal employees donated $2.6 million to the Democrats in 2008 and another $2.6 million in 2010.
* The National Education Association donated $2.3 million to Democrats in 2008 and $2.2 million in 2010.
* The Teamsters union donated $2.4 million to Democrats in 2008 and $2.3 million in 2010.
* The SEIU donated $2.6 million to Democrats in 2008 and $1.7 million in 2010.
* The Carpenters and Joiners union donated $2 million to Democrats in 2008 and $2.1 million 2010.
* The Laborers union donated $2.6 million to Democrats in 2008 and $2.2 million in 2010.
* The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers donated $3.8 million to Democrats in 2008 and $3.2 million in 2010.
* The American Federation of Teachers donated $2.8 million to Democrats in 2008 and $2.7 million in 2010.
* The Machinists and Aerospace union donated $2.5 million to Democrats in 2008 and $2.1 million in 2010.
* The Communication Workers of America, which includes employees from several television and radio stations and other publishing platforms, donated $2.2 million to Democrats in 2008 and $2.1 million in 2010.
* The United Autoworkers union (UAW) donated $2.1 million to Democrats in 2008 and $1.5 million in 2010.
* The United Food and Commercial Workers union (UFCW) donated $2.1 million to Democrats in 2008 and $1.9 million in 2010.
Most unions gave a negligible amount, if anything at all, to the Republican Party over the past two elections.
Although staggeringly large, these cash contributions represent ONLY A PORTION of the contributions that the unions make to elect lunatic-left d-cRAT socialists. The unions also fund the creation and broadcast of their own TV and radio ads in support of the d-cRAT socialists, they provide massive amounts of labor to help staff the d-cRAT socialist campaigns, they fund the creation and all costs associated with mass mailings in support of the d-cRAT socialists, and they fund and supply transportation and other help to the d-cRAT socialists during the voting process. It is a truly insidious and incestuous relationship that is very harmful and destructive to "free and open" elections that are supposed to be the cornerstone of American democracy.
Reality is catching up to the unions. And they know it.
The Socialist way. Always to take without producing anything . You shall know them by their parasitic nature. They can only take from the income that others create.
Well there ain't no doubt how the three females on the SCOTUS will vote. At least I think they are females. It appears that the SEIU may have messed up big time. This will be another big story for the MSM to ignore.
YAY!
One of the very worst turns made on the road to socialism was JFK's 1962 decision, by executive order, to lift the federal ban on government unions. JFK knew this was a horrible idea but did it to garner union support. Even FDR understood that public unions would destroy our country.
It's time to dismantle ALL PUBLIC UNIONS.
Speaking of unwarranted payments…………did you know it now costs $450.00 to renounce your American Citizenship?
A fine none the less…………what a joke.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_US_CITI...
Really…
What does it cost to buy one?
UNIONS ARE COMMUNISTS IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING.
HELP SANTORUM RAISE 1 MIL HERE:
www dot theantiliberalzone dot com
THE ANTI LIBERAL ZONE
That alone tells us the argument is political and not Constitutional. A 5-4 vote this year could go 5-4 the other way next year. This has always been about the right's desire to destroy collective bargaining. One day they will push it too far, as they have done in Wisconsin.
I hope this passes because I am tired of being forced at the point of government gun to support the political party unions of the republicans and democrats.
Stealing tax payer dollars to pay for their private function and then telling unaffiliated to sit down shut up.
Gerrymandering is another form of forced dues. Manipulation of the peoples voting districts to give their parties immortality.
People will always find a way to peaceably assemble and collectively bargain.
Since it seems from these facts that the majority of members don't want to pay, so how is it the unios are still in power. The facts speak for themselves. We must end all public unions if we are going to get this country back on track.
Unions are nothing more than a political tax on labor, most of which funds the democrat party.
If Republicans want money from unions they can stop representing the corporations who want $10 workers with no benefits.
I finished this article with a smile, freedom of association might still mean something after all
The weak sisters on the court are all conservative males. That may change soon.
Be honest. You want to see all collective bargaining outlawed. It may be time for workers in this country to rise up again.
Looks like the unions have finally reached so deep into others pockets as to come to their shoulders.
SCOTUS should make the right decision and the demise of the public sector union will hasten.
About time and not soon enough by a long shot.
These are processing fees, not fines. Why should tax payers be forced to subsidize traitors? If people want to renounce their citizenship they can pay for it themselves.
Trade unions, like the IBEW are totally different animals from labor unions, even if they have similar stripes. Trade unions, greedy as they can be, do provide some value in the form of training, maintaining and certifying the competence of their members. An IBEW Journeyman Electrician has a union-guaranteed level of competence, much like a BBB certified business has a certain level of integrity. There is a mutual trust there that Labor Unions cannot meet.
Labor Unions are generally a gaggle of unskilled or under-skilled people that decided that they are worth more than reality dictates.
Either way, unions will continue to falter unless the get over their adversarial natures and realize they need to be partners in a business, not its master or it's servant.
they're handing them out at the border…………green cards and drivers license.
Don't expect this to go too far. Unions are THE lobby in D.C. these days, buddy. What unions want, unions get. All hail; Union leader!
I believe that government unions are unconstitutional. Legalized thievery.
You're right. Voluntarily.
Key word.
Dues without any benefit does seem like a form of servitude.
I sure would like to get back 25 years of forced dues, that I was forced to pay for the privilege of working!!
"Take away the money and unions lose their political influence. "
substitute 'governments' for 'unions'…..
"they will push it too far, as they have done in Wisconsin." Well actually, they didn't push far enough. There are still many public sector unions that we can go after. The amount of money saved by Act 10 in Wisconsin in astounding $162,000,000.00 – The fact that Wisconsin has a balanced budget that did not require any of Doyle's old tricks, raising taxes or reducing services deserves emulation in every state. The TAXPAYER is sick of the graft and greed of the unions and sick of buddy-buddy relationship between them and the Democrats. If the Dems can't win without the blood money, they don't deserve to win.
The right is opposed to unions using the government to enrich themselves. And the people are getting tired of it, too.
Many people who join a union don't do so voluntarily. It comes with the job.
Personally, I want to see forced unionism and the forced collection of union dues outlawed. And so do many other workers in this country.
After the law passed in Wisconsin that the union couldn't automatically deduct dues from paychecks so many teachers stopped paying their dues that the teachers' union had to Lay off 40% of staff:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/wisconsin-tea...
We'll see about that this summer, and then again in November. You are in for a huge disappointment.
This just brings to mind how the rest of the working people are struggling to maintain equity and fairness in elections. It's an uphill battle as the Democrats automatically have millions at their disposal from government employees' unions. This is constitutional? That government unions are allowed to weigh the elections in their favor through money? I think not.
Absolutely agree! What a huge mistake for our country.
I can't help thinking that we are winning this battle very slowly and with one small victory at a time. Makes me feel warm and fuzzy all over for a change. Do you think people are starting to actually wake up to the corruption and progressive stupidity? All it took was a total crash of the economy to make people understand how they have been used to further an agenda that in the long run was set up to screw the worker and make the union bosses rich and powerful.
Surely Sotomayer will vote in favor of the worker, and Ginsberg couldn't keep from helping the little guy. It will be a 9-0 vote for sure, after all the supreme court is there to uphold the constitution. /sarc out.
They are far from giving up though. I'm sure the Think Progress crowd and ACLU will come up with something to twist this around. Wonder if all those companies Pelosi is invested in are all union shops……my bet is not.
They are far from giving up though. I'm sure the Think Progress crowd and ACLU will come up with something to twist this around. Wonder if all those companies Pelosi is invested in are all union shops……my bet is not.
"The automatic deductions funnel millions of dollars into public sector union coffers each year, with a portion frequently going toward partisan political causes and liberal candidates who promise to preserve or expand the unions’ forced dues racket."
Kowabunga Dude!!!
Unions are one of the few way workers can protect themselves from slavery to the plutocracy. Almost certainly the stooges on the Supreme Court will do everything they can to help the plutocrats.
Excuse me, but doesn't Joe Steel translate to Joseph Stalin?
Joe Steel, you may have noticed that we no longer make steel in this country. You obviously have no clue why. I remember when Pittsburgh was booming with steel plants. Thanks to unions and the EPA we buy our steel from other countries now.
They are not in sheeps clothing at all they ALLWAYS were communists and socialists. By the way I think if we all began to lose the term socialist and get to the point which is communism a lot more people will see the threat more realistically. Read number 36 http://www.rense.com/general32/americ.htm
The unions are very powerful. Did you know the president of the United States of America is in the union?
Joe most likely has one of those jobs that he can't get fired from and that pay really good for not much work, just saying it sounds like union chat. Union people are probably realizeing that they can't compete in the real work world and are freaking out like democrat voters do when they hear words like "welfare reform".
Besides having union members often forced to contribute to unions and then watch their money be used against their wishes, every single tax payer is also supporting the government unions whether they realize it or not. It is our tax dollars that pay the people in payroll departments all across the government spectrum, local, state, and federal. Those payroll clerks must first get new employees signed up with the union, then they must make the deductions from the payroll, and finally they must cut checks to the unions for the dues collected. They also have to be on hand and cooperate with union audits. The union isn't paying these people, WE are. It must be nice to be a union and have the tax payers pay for enrolling the members, collecting the dues, and have the tax payer foot the bill.
What SEIU pulled off in Michigan is absolutely the lowest these people can stoop. Anyone that receives state aid to care for a disabled person in their home must pay union dues and get zero union support. They are considered "home healthcare workers". Stay at home parents that care for a disabled child are paying the SEIU for nothing.
The sooner the public sector unions are eliminated….the better.
What's the matter with a person CHOOSING whether to pay union dues or not? If the union represents the people (as is claimed) then why does it seek to deny people the right to choose? Unions should be fighting for worker choice, not against it. I think it is you who is in for a big disappointment. Unions are just as accountable as any other group in this society, and people are tired of union threats, coercion and voting manipulation. There isn't a single vote that unions do not attempt to manipulate in their favor, yet their members make up a very small part of the population. Try to make that sound like a good thing, for the minority to force the majority to pay more money for less value and zero responsibility. Unions are a blight on our society.
Stealing the money of hardworking Americans to give to the Democratzi 'loon' socialists to take America down from within! They are just as criminal as the mafia and street gangs in America…and should be prosecuted for their crimes against society AND their members!
MICHIGAN SEIU STEALING MEDICAID PAYMENTS FOR UNION DUES!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4g9ILNUr_8&fe...
GET YOUR UNION DUES REFUNDED IF THEY ARE NOT USING THEM PROPERLY…Republican Saul Anuzis (a former member of the Teamsters) announced the launch of a new website specifically designed to give union members assistance in getting refunds for the portion of their dues used on politics. It is not “anti-union,” it is a site with one purpose—to help union members who do NOT want their dues money used on politics, regardless of party.
http://www.unionrefund.org/
BANISH THE UNION ‘GOONS’ – BOTH PUBLIC & PRIVATE
IS YOUR STATE “RIGHT TO WORK”? – http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm
Just like the left does, we should never stop chipping away at the foundations of our enemies.
Take money away from the evil, greedy unions and their overblown power will evaporate.
This is the best news I've read today!
I've been in a few of these unions, Teamsters, IBEW, UAW, CWA, and USW…..laid of from each and every one of them…..
Never been to Pluto though….
Tell us what it's like there…..
like cockroaches, they scurry……….
Because liberal choices are only choices if you agree with them.
Dimwit! The case is about forcing members and non-member to have fees used for political purpuses automatically deducted form paychecks. How does this fit into your conspiracy theory?
Try this site: Every union member in America is potentially owed hundreds of dollars from their union. Yet most don't know how to go about getting their hard earned money back. Let your friends and co-workers know that UnionRefund.org is here to help them get their money back today. http://unionrefund.org/
I'm sitting here laughing like a 60's movie villain
A ruling striking down automatic union dues deductions doesn't go nearly far enough.
Public sector unions receive ALL of their funding from the involuntary confiscation of money from citizens who have no say in how that money is spent. There is absolutely no justification for forcing citizens to subsidize political speech with which they disagree.
The public sector unions — and any other publicly funded entity — should have absolutely zero authority to participate in the political process.
And how do those who vehemently oppose the message of the corrupt, parasitic unions protect THEMselves from being forced to subsidize that message?
But unlike the corrupt, un-American left, we have truth, righteousness and the will of the people on our side.
The despicable left laughably holds itself out as "compassionate" and "caring," but they are THE most selfish, greedy, corrupt pigs on the planet. They are very compassionate with OTHER people's money, but that's where their compassion ends. They ALWAYS put their perverted, un-American agenda first and that end always justifies the means.
Please share with us your definition of plutocracy. Clearly you take the marxist Democrat view that it is your birth right to steal from the American taxpayers because Marx told you so.
Exactly correct. As I stated below, a ruling striking down automatic dues deductions doesn't go nearly far enough. There is absolutely zero justification for forcing free citizens to subsidize political speech with which it disagrees. Any publicly funded entity should have ZERO right to participate in the political process as a consequence of receiving that public funding.
Briefly I got "group health insurance" through a very large national real estate firm. Once signed up – it was really fascist the way they did their billing" I noticed that ONE HALF of the monthly charge of $160 for my husband and me or $80/ month was union dues. I cancelled.
Seems like unions can't handle the heat brought by Walker, and now other states joining in. No excuse for taxpayers to pay for collecting union dues for the Democrat party.
We have seen one thing for sure: Industry after industry in this country destroyed as a direct result of unions. They never quit until they have killed the host, in this case, the United States.
No, it's always been about the Right's desire to not force citizens to finance political speech with which it disagrees.
How would you like to be forced to fund Rush Limbaugh's radio program? No, you wouldn't like that very much at all.
Carry on, Stalin.
What's the matter with a person CHOOSING whether to pay union dues or not?
You won't get a serious answer to that question from a leftist. Because to the left, the ends (winning elections) justifies the means (forcing citizens to finance political speech they disagree with), and the only answer they will give you is vapid platitudes about "the rich," "fairness," and "the little guy."
They cannot and will not try to defend the indefensible on the merits.
Great. Let them.
But stop holding a gun to their heads to force them to the assembly.
Republicans DON'T want money from unions.
What we want is for the corrupt unions to stop picking the pockets of free citizens to FORCE them to subsidize speech with which they disagree.
Actually, the weak ones are those who cannot make legal arguments that stand up to constitutional scrutiny, so they base their tyrannical decisions on frauds like "living and breathing," "emanations and penumbras" and citing foreign law to try to justify their weak, pathetic, unconstitutional legal arguments.
And when it comes to the ends-justifies-the-means left, that will never change.
Interupting the flow of money slows down the drug cartels and will do the same for the unions.
I believe that there is a need for an organization that represents the interests of workers, unfortunatly the unions became controlled by interests that saw them as cash cows, money that would be used to furthur the interests of union leaders rather that the interests of the union members.
Be honest — you don't care how many people's rights are trampled, as long as the Democrat Party benefits from the constitutional perversion.
It may be time for workers in this country to rise up again.
Let's give them the chance to do just that. Let's remove mandatory dues and see how many of them choose to rise up by voluntarily funding their union's message.
Surely you can't be against that, can you, Stalin?
What has that to do withing anything?
I think you're wrong. Some steel is produced in the US but your point is made. Greedy capitalists have moved most steel producting out of the US. Obviously, relying on capitalists to support the American economy is foolish.
Members of any organization are subject to its rules. If a member doesn't like the policies of the union, he can quit.
My definition is the dictionary definition; a government run by the rich for the benefit of the rich.
And if the union is asking its members to commit crimes, would that be OK with you?
See, the fundamental constitutional question is, should people be FORCED to subsidize political speech with which they disagree. It's CLEARLY unconstitutional, no matter what "rules" are passed by the corrupt unions.
There's a reason the unions tried to settle the suit and avoid a constitutional confrontation. I'll let you figure out the reason.
“It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government”–George Meany, former president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O.
And there's a reason Meany made that statement, which seems to go right over the heads of the Marxist left.
OK, carry on, Stalin.
So, let me get this right, when you get estimates on , say, car repair if you take the lowest bid you are being greedy. When you by a product at a lower price you are being greedy. You confuse greed with being smart.
Workers should have the right of choice as to WHETHER THEY WANT TO BELONG TO A UNION OR NOT OR PAY UNION DUES. This is a right that Unions forget. They have done much good and they are an important counter to the power of business and management. But, they have been responsible for killing the goose that lays the golden egg of US manufacturing and extraction, processing jobs. Maybe it is time for a Constitutional Amendment:
RIGHT TO WORK
*Citizens of the United States shall have the right to choose as to whether they will join a union or not.
*They shall not be coerced into the payment of monetary dues to said organization, even if their place of employment supports a union or not.
*A citizen may not be denied employment or lose employment because of their refusal to join a union.
*Government entities, business entities shall not discriminate against citizens when hiring or advancement within such entities who choose union membership or not.
Annnnd "Why does it cost more to produce it in the US?" "How did the US lose it's competitive edge?"
I was taught in the 50's that unions were a necessary evil that ,in general, helped workers. But corruption and power have swung the pendulum from one extreme wrong to another. Being forced to pay for what is against one's conscience is certainly NOT democracy.
Taking money out of a person's paycheck automatically is a TAX. Since when is it legal for a private entity (which a union is) to tax American citizens?
And how does forcing citizens to finance political speech with which they disagree advance the goal of fighting your imaginary "plutocracy?"
You know I've been surprised by the recent 9-0 decisions from the court. Wouldn't surprise me if this was 9-0 also. Remember, the issue here isn't union dues, it is forced union dues which are about as anti 1st amendment as you can get, and everyone knows it. The recent 9-0 decisions have also been "no brainers" so, there is hope still…
Decision will be 5-4 one way or the other…….
Thanks for the info. I love to make these people mad! Back in the 1990's I tried this and was told to get the @&%K out of the union or jump thru loops with the national headquarters. I was to close to retirement to fight it. So I dropped it,
Other then the fact that Stalin completely wiped out the influence of labor unions within his country, nothing.
The people of this case were NON-members that were forced to pay dues regardless. I guess reading comprehension isn't big with neomarxists these days.
You are damn right I want to see collective bargaining outlawed!
What you call "collective bargaining" is actually forced redistribution from taxpayers to unions–rubber stamped by Democrats.
When public unions "bargain", who exactly is sitting at the bargaining table? Not the taxpayers! It's unions "bargaining" with the Democratic politicians who they elect. No Democrat can get elected without union support.
No taxation without representation.
I live in Wisconsin. Walker will win his recall. Even the polls are showing it close to a 10 point Walker win.
The unions are afraid to WASTE national labor $$$ in the State. They need that $$ to defend Obama.
I can't get excited about this. The court will not decide to stop the union thugs. The state of Indiana in the 60s stopped the practice of the democrats forcing "voluntary" contributions from the state employees in order to keep their jobs. Up until that time it had been legal for a department head to walk from chair to chair asking for donations to the democrat party and his campaign fund, and to wait by the chair while the check book was pulled out and a substantial amount was "donated". The intimidated employees were not protected so they went along with it. A court ruling and a change in the laws were required to stop the pratice. Immediately the democrats lost elections in Indiana. Then, the democrats decided to use the public employee unions to perform the shakedown for them, and the democrat party was funded anew.
No taxpayers money is being used. It is being taken out of the employees paychecks, not yours Miles. Get your facts straight for a change. And the employees do receive representation. They receive representation with their boss, their agency, their department and their state elected officials. And it is obviously good representation because Andy wouldn't be spending all this time fighting union representation if it wasn't effective. Now would he?
Unions are not privately owned and controlled firms. They are non-profit organizations of employees for the purposes of negotiating a fair contract with the employees employer. When you go after the "Teachers' Unions" you are not attacking some anonymous organization of unknown persons, you are attacking your children's teachers. Those poor men and women you refuse to adequately pay and who are forced to spend money out of their own pockets to educate.
You must be logged in to post a comment.