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The Supreme Court case stems from a “special assessment” that was automatically withdrawn from union and non-union state employees’ checks in 2005 to help defeat a ballot proposal in California that would have made it illegal to force employees to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.

For one Michigan educator, the annual costs of “non-membership” in the local, state and national teacher unions total $544.28.

But Andrew Buikema, 10-year teacher with Grant Public Schools, is willing to pay the price, just for the privilege of being seen as a true professional, instead of a union worker.

Michigan is not a “right to work” state, which means Buikema’s job is still affected by the district’s contract with the local teachers union, the Grant Education Association. The GEA is affiliated with the Michigan Education Association and the National Education Association.

Buikema has been trying to leave the union since last spring, when he realized that GEA leaders were uninterested in helping the district control costs, even in the face of a multi-million dollar deficit.

By refusing to make wage and benefit concessions, the union contributed to conditions that led to 27 teachers – including Buikema – receiving layoff notices. The district was also forced into making cuts to student academic and extracurricular programs.

Buikema’s job was saved at the last minute, but he was disgusted by the union’s selfishness.

The union’s intransigence convinced Buikema that “the union doesn’t care about kids.”

“They keep asking for more and more, even though the school district can’t afford it,” he told EAG. “They’re concerned about taking care of the adults and have no consideration for the kids. I don’t want to be part of an organization that says one thing and does another,” he said.

Buikema said he was “raked over the coals” by his local union leaders when he suggested the GEA could help alleviate the district’s financial woes – and possibly help save some teaching jobs – by switching from union-owned and operated MESSA health insurance to a less expensive carrier.

Buikema estimated that the district could save between $530,000 and $980,000 annually.

Not only did local union leaders not like Buikema’s idea, but they verbally attacked him for even suggesting it.

“The amount of flak I got, particularly from veteran teachers, was ridiculous to the point of being unprofessional,” he said.

Buikema was also put off by the NEA’s new $10 levy on members to help re-elect President Obama.

“It’s the principle involved,” Buikema said at the time. “They’re taking money to support a candidate that members may or may not support. That’s a very big deal.”

Unions bury dissenters in pile of legal documents

Last summer, Buikema decided to cancel his union membership altogether.

The MEA and NEA finally responded to his resignation request last month by sending approximately 150 pages of documents. The upshot of all those documents is this: Buikema can technically quit both unions, but he must still pay them $544.28 in “service fees,” which equals 67.7 percent of a normal union membership.

“Dear Non-Member,” the MEA letter begins, “You are employed in a bargaining unit represented by an affiliate of the Michigan Education Association. … Your collective bargaining agreement contains a provision which requires you to join the association or to pay a service fee.”

Another document explains that those service fees are based on “annual expenditures … incurred for the purpose of performing the duties of an exclusive representation of the employees.”

The unions claim the service fee only pays for activities that don’t involve an “ideological cause or political activity unrelated to collective bargaining, contract administration, grievance adjustment and lawfully chargeable employee representation.” A 64-page document breaks down all of the separate charges that go into the $544.28 fee, and explains how each is allowed under current law.

Yesterday, Buikema sent his own letter to the MEA:

“I am enclosing a check for $25 to the MEA, because that’s what I can afford to do right now. You will receive the remaining balance as I am able to pay. …

” … Forcing teachers to join your organization and pay dues is criminal. What happened to free will and the right to choose? I am trying to get out of the union because you don’t stand for kids.

” … You send this massive packet of … legal documents that I cannot decipher because I am not a lawyer … to do what exactly? Scare me? Intimidate me? What you are proving is that you will go to great lengths to get people’s money. …”

As a non-member, Buikema has the legal right to contest any of the “service fee” charges, but it entails a long and complicated legal process. And the MEA and NEA are well-represented by lawyers and accountants, as the stack of documents makes clear. The implication is obvious: It is futile for an individual teacher to protest the hundreds of dollars in fees.

“They’re just going to make you pay anyway,” Buikema concludes.

Buikema says some of his colleagues have expressed interest in also breaking away from the union, but are taking a wait-and-see approach.

“Most teachers like to be safe and stay in their comfort zone,” Buikema said. “I don’t care about that.”

Buikema has remained an outspoken union critic, and wants to be seen as a true professional whose worth is solely determined by his performance in the classroom, and not by his ranking on the seniority chart.

That won’t truly happen until Michigan becomes a right to work state, and union membership is no longer compulsory. Until then, Buikema chooses to be a “non-member” and will pay $544.28 for the privilege.

Aren’t union bosses basically the 1 percent?

Throughout the run-up to Ohio’s Issue 2 election on November 8, in which voters will consider a referendum on the state’s new public sector labor reforms, I’ve met pponents of the bill at Occupy Columbus who say they are fed up with “the rich taking from the middle class.” They direct their class warfare energies at the abstract Wall Street anathema, but the scenario is literally accurate–and not in some obtuse, Marxist form–as a description of the fiscal dynamic between union bosses and rank-and-file members.

I asked one teacher how, being an Occupy demonstrator and opponent of Ohio labor reforms, she justified the $210,000 annual salary of Larry Wicks, executive director of the Ohio Education Association (OEA), of which she is a dues-paying member. She paused for thought–understandably, since that fact would seem to justify class warfare against the “rich” Mr. Wicks. Ultimately, she concurred with my criticism, and even condemned her very own OEA.

Other Ohio teachers are even less hesitant to criticize their union. One teacher (who wished to remain anonymous for her own safety) shared that she had requested a waiver to opt out of paying the union’s political assessments, to which the response was, “We’ll get back to you.” They didn’t.

Recently, fifteen teachers filed a class-action suit in the U.S. District Court in Columbus, claiming the OEA had illegally refused to provide the teachers with independently-audited financial statements disclosing how fees were being appropriated.

Laurie Kipfer, an Ohio teacher brave enough to go on record, wondered aloud why liberal grief focuses on the modest benefit concessions mandated by Ohio’s new labor reforms, and not the unaccounted-for annual dues and random assessments mandated by union bosses who decry such concessions.

Apparently, the union rank-and-file members are caught in the middle of a disagreement over whom they should share more of their costs with–the taxpayers who are literally funding their salaries, or the union bosses who are taking from their salaries.

I brought union members’ concerns to the OEA itself, as shown in the video above, to find out how teachers might find out how their dues are being spent. A representative who answered my call admitted she did not have that information, and directed me towards the union’s magazine–which, according to both my and Kipfer’s reading thereof, offers little to no explanation or breakdowns of expenditures. The representative then insisted that because I’m not an OEA member, she could not divulge any information.

I wondered: since union bosses have wrapped their arms around President “Spread the Wealth Around” Obama, why don’t they, who pack their six-figure salaries with funds collected directly from workers’ paychecks, spread their own wealth directly back to the dues-payers, thus providing more savings to cover the accommodations in new union reform bills?

I ran that idea by Teamsters Union President Jimmy Hoffa, Jr. after his appearance at an anti-Issue 2 rally in Cincinnati. This was shortly after he endorsed Occupy Wall Street, claiming on MSNBC’s (now-discredited) Ed Show that “the system is rigged against [the poor and middle class]“, demanding “equality of sacrifice,” and claiming that “the rich are not paying enough.”

Hoffa made $294,285 in 2010 as Teamsters Union President, according to financial disclosure forms- money made directly from the paychecks of workers he “protects.” His response to my idea:

The answer is we ought to have more taxes on people, and I think we ought to raise the taxes on the rich people in this country, and I think everyone should do that, and I think we should have more taxes, and let’s make sure everybody has equality of sacrifice, and we should be paying more taxes, just like Warren Buffett.

It is understandable why Hoffa would prefer tax hikes on the “rich people” as opposed to cutting his own union-dues-funded salary, inasmuch as his close friend, President Obama, whom he described as his army leader, provided a special exemption for unions from the ObamaCare excise tax on Cadillac health insurance plans. Spread the wealth around–but not Hoffa’s.

What is not understandable is why Hoffa would bemoan the Wall Street bailouts and demand the prosecution of Wall Street CEOs whom he feels caused the collapse, when his own union demanded a $165 billion pension bailout over a collapse he created.

It seems an elementarily simple request, asking union bosses who demand “shared sacrifice”–while decrying the modest amounts requested by taxpayers in helping to pay union members’ benefits–to share in the sacrifice to help those they are “protecting.”

It’s reminiscent of a scene in the 1983 film This is Spinal Tap. After Christopher Guest boasts about his system amplifier going to eleven instead of ten for that “extra push over the cliff,” Rob Reiner innocently asks: “Why not make ten louder and make ten the top number?” Guest blinkingly, gum-chewingly pauses for thought before answering, “These go to eleven.”

Somehow, Hoffa’s Teamsters Union, the OEA, et al. have managed to seduce their dues-payers with possessively protective promises. However, not all of the rank and file have fallen for them–even those active in Occupy Wall Street protests.

The Occupy protestors insist that “corporations are not people.” If “corporations are not people,”  then neither are unions. At least in the former case, shareholders have the choice to not invest in companies that fundraise for political activities with which they disagree. In the latter case, industry-relegated dues-payers do not have that choice. But, of course, not all “progressives” are authentically pro-choice.

Like Rob Reiner’s, these are reasonable points that can be made to the Occupy demonstrators who want the rich to stop “taking from the middle class,” yet want to protect a system whereby rich union bosses literally do take from their middle class workers while claiming to have their backs. But then again, these go to eleven.

However disdainfully un-American it is to argue whether someone makes too much money in what was once the nation known as the land of opportunity, sometimes you have to roll with the pigs in the pigsty to show how stupid their arguments are. So here goes:

Here is the AFL-CIO’s statement:

In 2010, Standard & Poor’s 500 Index company CEOs received, on average, $11.4 million in total compensation. Based on 299 companies’ most recent pay data for 2010, their combined total CEO pay of $3.4 billion could support 102,325 median workers’ jobs.

Using a simple calculator, it is easy to determine that the “workers’ jobs” would pay $33,227 per year (about $16 per hour), not counting union dues, of course.

Given the AFL-CIO’s penchant for pushing an eat the rich ideology, it seemed worthwhile to use the unions’ own logic to run our own set of numbers to determine how many workers’ median jobs one years’ worth of union dues could support.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2010, there were 14.7 million union Americans belonging to unions. While that only represents 11.9 percent of all wage and salary earners, there is a substantial amount of dues money flowing to unions.

If we were to use a conservative figure of $50 per month for union dues, in 2010, unions collected $735,000,000 per month in union dues from America’s unionized workers. Multiply $735,000,000 by 12 months and you get a whopping $8,820,000,000 that was collected in union dues in 2010.

Divide $8,820,000,000 by $33,227 and you’ll find that if unions did not take union dues from workers in 2010, 265,447 workers’ jobs could have been supported.

Since union dues only go to support the salaries and benefits of union bosses, their staffs, and their golf courses, airplanes, and other costs, perhaps the argument really needs to be reversed. Rather than creating or saving jobs, given that unions do not produce a product and can actually be attributed with being masters of manipulation, buying politicians, killing companies, pushing policies that stifle growth, as well as creating huge pension and health care deficits, perhaps it’s really time to rein in union dues.

_________________

“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776

Photo Credit

X-posted.

Labor historian Fred Siegel offers further reasons why unions are manning the barricades. Mr. Walker would require that public-employee unions be recertified annually by a majority vote of all their members, not merely by a majority of those that choose to cast ballots. In addition, he would end the government’s practice of automatically deducting union dues from employee paychecks. For Wisconsin teachers, union dues total between $700 and $1,000 a year.

“Ending dues deductions breaks the political cycle in which government collects dues, gives them to the unions, who then use the dues to back their favorite candidates and also lobby for bigger government and more pay and benefits,” Mr. Siegel told me. After New York City’s Transport Workers Union lost the right to automatic dues collection in 2007 following an illegal strike, its income fell by more than 35% as many members stopped ponying up. New York City ended the dues collection ban after 18 months.

Myron Lieberman, a former Minnesota public school teacher who became a contract negotiator for the American Federation of Teachers, says that since the 1960s collective bargaining has so “greatly increased the political influence of unions” that they block the sorts of necessary change that other elements of society have had to accept.

The labor laws that Wisconsin unions are so bitterly defending were popular during an era of industrialization and centralization. But the labor organizations they protect have become much less popular, as the declining membership of many private-sector unions attests. Moreover, it’s become abundantly clear that too many government workers enjoy wages, benefits and pensions that are out of line with the rest of the economy.

Mr. Walker’s argument—that public workers shouldn’t be living high off the hog at the expense of taxpayers—is being made in other states facing budget crises. But the left observed the impact of the tea party last year and seems determined to unleash a more aggressive version of its own by teaming up with union allies. Organizing for America is already coordinating protests against proposed reforms in Ohio, Michigan and Missouri.

Read the whole thing here.

On the mid-terms, unions spent hundreds of millions on voter registration, campaign donations, TV ads, manpower and GOTV efforts. Nearly all of that money went to union-bought Democrats.

In 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that union members who object to having their union dues spent on politics can get a refund for the portion of their dues used for politics. Since then, however, many union members have found the process of getting their dues refunds an burdensome process.

This week, at CPAC, 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.

The site is UnionRefund.org

According to UnionRefund.org:

UnionRefund.org is NOT a political action organization. It is not tied to any political party. It does not run candidates for election, and it does not financially support or endorse candidates. It neither opposes nor endorses legislation.

UnionRefund.org is a project designed to help educate, organize and assist union members nationwide in exercising their “Beck rights” as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Imagine how better off this country could be if union members’ money wasn’t being used to elect politicians who care more for serving their union masters then serving all Americans.

Take a look at UnionRefund.org and send it along to those union members who may not want their money used supporting candidates and causes that are bringing the nation to its knees.

_________________

“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776

X-posted.

Nationwide, as many Americans have begun to see, unions have become one of the largest special interest groups in the nation—and often at the expense of taxpayers and, in many cases, other workers. As unions have moved more into politics, this transition from building unions for workers to building a progressive political party to “reorder America’s priorities” has left many union members wondering whether their unions have been hijacked for purposes outside of the betterment of the workplace.  As more and more politicians get bought off by union bosses, it certainly seems clear that today’s unions are more about building a ‘progressive’ political movement than representing many of their members’ interests.

In all, unions collect over $13 billion dollars per year in union dues and fees from workers, the majority of whom have no choice but to pay the union or be fired from their jobs.  Once the money leaves the workers’ pockets, though, union bosses are pretty much free to use the money how they see fit.  For example, in addition to paying themselves and their staffs, union bosses also take the money and spend an astronomical amount of money pushing their progressive agenda.

While hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on direct political activities and lobbying, unions also spend hundreds of millions on funding shadowy groups to push for things like nationalized health care, the job-killing Employee Free Choice Act (which effectively eliminates workers’ right to a secret-ballot election), as well as the effort to nationalize America’s retirement system.

Despite the use of union dues being used with little input from the workers themselves, throughout the country, there are cracks beginning to appear in the more “progressive” (read: socialist) union bosses’ veneer.  As union bosses have pushed open borders and the legalization of illegal immigrants as a means of replenishing their depleted ranks, some have taken exception.

Pushing Back Against ‘Progressive’ Union Bosses.

In 2006, breaking with their more ‘progressive’ comrades, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) passed a resolution opposing Amnesty for Illegals.

A resolution adopted by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) at their recent convention in Cleveland, opposing amnesty for illegal aliens and expansion of the number of guest workers admitted to the U.S. is further evidence of bipartisan opposition to the immigration plan being promoted by President Bush and Senate leaders.

Organized labor has traditionally been a key constituency within the Democratic Party, and the resolution approved by the IBEW membership, together with recent statements by Teamster’s president James Hoffa, indicates widespread opposition to a guest worker amnesty plan that cuts across partisan lines.

The IBEW approved its resolution after their convention was addressed by CNN’s LOU DOBBS. The resolution places the 750,000-member union firmly on record in opposition to amnesty for illegal aliens and new guest worker programs, and in support of immigration enforcement at the borders and in the workplace.

In Milwaukee, when pro-amnesty forces hijacked a Labor Day parade a few years ago, Local 75 of the Plumbers and Gas Fitters boycotted the parade.

Local 75 of the Plumbers and Gas Fitters will break from tradition and not march in Milwaukee’s Labor Day parade today because the union considers the inclusion of immigrant advocates a distraction from Labor Day.

“This is strictly a Labor Day celebration. Any other purpose of this parade would not do Labor Day any justice, in my opinion. It’s designed to celebrate labor. Labor only,” said Harry Kreuser, Local 75 business manager.

[snip]

“There was conversation about bringing in the Hispanic community to participate in the parade, and it was a rally on their part for legalizing the illegal aliens in the Hispanic community. And we just felt that this parade should not be a political parade or a political statement as much as it is for Labor Day,” Kreuser said.

This year, when a coalition of unions spearheaded by the SEIU organized a boycott over Arizona’s new SB1070, this caused some backlash, even within the SEIU, where a number of Arizona members have quit the SEIU over the union’s attempt to cause their state economic harm.

Dozens of city employees in Chandler, Tempe and Gilbert have quit the Service Employees International Union this year over what some are saying is the organization’s decision to boycott Arizona over SB 1070, the state’s controversial immigration-enforcement law.

The 58 who pulled out of the union in Chandler since the organization announced its national boycott May 5 cut the city’s membership by about 30 percent – from 198 to 140 workers. The Tempe municipal employees’ SEIU local saw 25 of its 264 members quit during the same period. Gilbert’s 84 SEIU members represent a 16 percent drop from the 100 recorded in February. All three municipalities provided the membership numbers in response to public-records requests.

“This is an emotional, highly charged issue and people on both sides feel very strongly about it,” said Scott Washburn, Arizona SEIU director. “A significant number disagree with the union, but some new members have joined because of it (the boycott).”

[snip]

Nan Kahl, a Chandler city clerk’s assistant and former SEIU member, was among those who quit. Before she left the union she held leadership positions in the group and was an active volunteer who helped organize SEIU’s water drive to benefit the homeless this year. Kahl declined to publicly discuss her reasons for quitting but said the boycott and SB 1070 controversy appears to be the biggest factor in the mass exodus. She also said personal finances may play a role for some. Union dues are based on a percentage of employees’ pay and some whose spouses have lost jobs are now the family breadwinners, she said.

Chandler Human Resources Director Debra Stapleton said there is one-time period during which employees can drop union membership and that came shortly after the SB 1070 boycott was announced by SEIU. Stapleton said the 58 who quit represent the largest drop she has seen at one time.

The SEIU’s problem with members quitting the union in Arizona is likely to grow even larger for the purple behemoth as 22 other states are also considering legislation like Arizona’s SB 1070.

Union Members Have the Right to NOT Have Their Dues Used for Politics.

Unlike workers in Right-to-Work states who can stop paying a union entirely, most union members do not have that right because they live in states without Right to Work laws.  This fact leaves many union members frustrated because their dues are being used by union bosses for politicians and political causes the members may not agree with.

However, there are ways in which workers—even those who are required to pay a union as a condition of employment—can stop a union from using their dues money for politicians and political causes they do not support.  This process is known as union members exercising their Beck Rights [named after union member Harry Beck, who successfully sued to stop having his dues money used for politics].

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a foundation that helps workers fight forced unionism (for free).  The NRTW has laid out an easy-to-read guide for unionized workers to understand their rights, as well as provides a sample letter for members to send their union to stop having their union dues used for politics.

[LETTER TO UNION:
SEND BY CERTIFIED MAIL,
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED]

[your address]
[date]

[name and address of union]

[To appropriate union officer]:

I object to the collection and expenditure by the union of a fee for any purpose other than my pro rata share of the union’s costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment, as is my right under Communications Workers v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988). Pursuant to Teachers Local 1 v. Hudson , 475 U.S. 292 (1986), and Abrams v. Communications Workers, 59 F.3d 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1995), I request that you provide me with my procedural rights, including: reduction of my fees to an amount that includes only lawfully chargeable costs; notice of the calculation of that amount, verified by an independent certified public accountant; and notice of the procedure that you have adopted to hold my fees in an interest-bearing escrow account and give me an opportunity to challenge your calculation and have it reviewed by an impartial decisionmaker.

[If you pay dues by payroll deduction, include this paragraph: Accordingly, I also hereby notify you that I wish to authorize only the deduction of representation fees from my wages. If I am required to sign a new deduction authorization form to make that change, please provide mewith the necessary form.]

Please reply promptly to my request. Any further collection or expenditure of dues or fees from me made without the procedural safeguards required by law will violate my rights under the National Labor Relations Act and/or U.S. Constitution.

Finally, please consider this objection to be permanent and continuing in nature.

Sincerely yours,
[name]

If you include the paragraph on the change in your payroll deduction
authorization, you should also send a copy of this letter to the payroll department of your employer.

Another way in which workers—even those in Non-Right-to-Work states—can choke off having their dues used for politics is to vote not to have forced union dues at all. This is called a ‘deauthorization election.’

A deauthorization election has only one purpose and effect: to remove the forced-unionism clause from the contract. The remainder of the contract, including all wages and benefits, remains in effect and the union continues to serve as the exclusive bargaining representative, whether or not the employees pay any dues or fees. Even after a successful deauthorization, every employee remains fully covered by the contract, whether or not he or she remains a union member or pays any dues.

A deauthorization election should be distinguished from a “Decertification” election, in which employees vote to remove the union as their collective bargaining representative. While decertification elections can normally be held only near the expiration of the contract (or every three years, whichever comes first), deauthorization elections can be held at any time during the life of the contract.

Most employees prefer a workplace where membership and the payment of dues is voluntary, as it forces the union hierarchy to be more accountable to the rank-and-file workers. Instead of relying on threats, intimidation, and even firings to gain financial support, union officials have to sell the benefits of union membership. [Emphasis added.]

In fact, deauthorization elections happen more often than unions would care to admit.  Currently, in Pennsylvania, workers at Pocono Medical Center are scheduled to have an election to decide whether or not the SEIU should be able to force workers to be fired for failure to pay dues.

Some Pocono Medical Center workers want the ability to opt out of the Service Employees International Union because they feel the union hasn’t done its job.

“They negotiated the contract and told us they could get certain things, but we didn’t get them — raises and bonuses, better health care — none of that ever happened,” dietary worker Steven VonCrep said. “It’s a matter of free choice, our freedom to choose to belong to the union or not.”

As more and more union members get fed up with having their dues money used on issues they do not support, there is likely to be an increase of the type of push back that the SEIU is experiencing in Arizona and elsewhere.

Moreover, as today’s union bosses continue to prove that they are more of a special interest group whose goals differ from that of many Americans, members knowing how to exercise their rights will become increasingly important.

__________________

“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.”  Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776