Home Subscribe Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri

Opinion


EDITORIAL: Union dues and free speech

High court has another chance to weigh in on issue

In an important First Amendment case out of Washington state, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last June that public employee unions must get consent from individual members before using their dues for political purposes.

The union had argued that if a worker didn't specifically object to the practice, his dues were fair game for labor bosses to spend on political activity.

The Washington Supreme Court upheld the union position, actually ruling that to hold otherwise would violate the union's right to free speech, ignoring the dangerous ramifications for the free speech rights of the workers who were being forced to financially support political activism with which they disagreed.

Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court wasn't buying such snake oil. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote succinctly for a unanimous court that, "Unions have no constitutional entitlement to the fees of non-member employees."


Most Popular Stories
  • SHERMAN FREDERICK: Hillary's best hope: racism
  • J.C. WATTS: Your side, my side and the truth
  • J.C. WATTS: Social conservatives still a political force
  • JOHN BRUMMETT: It's the worst of all worlds for the DemocratsCommentary
  • EDITORIAL: Billing Mrs. Fossett
  • EDITORIAL: Just 'trust our incumbent senators'
  • LETTERS: Tipping 'expert' a total cheapskate
  • ERIN NEFF: They just figured it was a lingerie supplier
  • LETTERS: Judge gave drunken driver a wrist slap
  • LETTERS: If you follow orders, no one gets hurt



  • On Tuesday, the high court agreed to hear another case involving the use of mandatory union fees.

    Nationwide, 28 states authorize public unions to collect mandatory fees from all employees. That means 12 million workers in public- and private-sector jobs are required to pay dues or fees to a union even if they elect not to join, according to the National Right to Work Committee.

    The latest case comes from Maine, where the Maine State Employees Association (MSEA) is the exclusive bargaining unit for many state workers. As a condition of employment, even those who elect not to join the association must pay compulsory "agency" fees, supposedly to cover the costs of the collective bargaining that benefits them.

    But a handful of non-union state workers in Maine noticed that the MSEA was funneling a portion of their fees to its parent union, the Service Employees International, for use in collective bargaining lawsuits in other jurisdictions. That meant the workers were being forced to help pay bargaining costs incurred by union members in other states.

    A federal appeals court upheld this practice, but it will now move on to the top court.

    "The case is the latest instance of the justices addressing issues that could erode the power of labor unions," noted The Associated Press.

    Yet, if limiting the ability of organized labor to use coercion to fund its agenda erodes union power, it's power these groups never should have enjoyed in the first place.

    And if the justices rely on precedent, the Maine union will have a tough time during arguments.

    In a 1984 case outlined on www.lawmemo. com, Justice Harry Blackmun cited a 1981 decision in which the court unanimously "determined that the {Railway Labor Act}, as informed by the First Amendment, prohibits the use of dissenters' fees for extra-unit litigation." Therefore, the Bill of Rights "proscribes such assessments in the public sector."

    That would seem to be right on point, here.

    If non-union public-sector workers who are part of a collective bargaining unit -- and must be in order to continue their employment -- wish to voluntarily donate a portion of their checks to help workers elsewhere in their negotiations with management, fine. But they mustn't be forced to do so.

    Links powered by inform.com


    Leave Your Comment 2 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Common Sense wrote on February 20, 2008 06:21 AM: For decades, the government worker unions have run this incestuous racket -- they funnel the union dues to politicians who kick back to the workers perpetual pay raises, bonuses, holidays, vacations, and (of course) obscene pensions and free medical care for life.

    All they have to do is keep raising taxes.

    It's massive fraud, and part of a criminal enterprise. But the people who are supposed to prosecute these criminals are public employees, too. They want THEIR pensions and THEIR free health care .... so they ignore this particular RICO violation.

    The Supreme Court might put an end to it, but I doubt it. I think the scam will simply have to collapse on its own.

    We can only hope we're around to witness that delightful show.


    Vegas Vic wrote on February 20, 2008 05:45 AM: It's about time that some action against union misuse of dues is being taken. This is especially true of the non-union employees that are forced to pay the agency fees.