Teachers' free speech trumps union politics - Page 2

BroncoBilly · #11 (**permalink**) 06-17-2007, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsh1120";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoBilly";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsh1120";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoBilly";p=&quot

If it was a simple check box, how did it become an such issue with the SCOTUS? They have been ripping not only teachers but all the California State Employees Unions have been doing the same thing. Take your money, whether you agree with were it goes or not, they were forced to pay. So don't try to paint as merely nothing with your liberal BS.

You're a little challenged in the details and facts department, aren't you? You may consider it "liberal BS," but the nine justices of the Supreme Court wouldn't agree with you. There were two issues before the Court. One was the issue of "opt in" or "opt out" of authorizing political action from agency fees. The other was the state's power to regulate the procedure. The Court made no finding on the first issue and gave the State of Washington the power to decide. Feel free to argue with them if you like.

As far as California is concerned, there is no comparable law to Washington's. In fact, in November 2005, the voters rejected Proposition 75 which would have instituted a similar law in the state. So feel free to argue with the majority of voters in California if you like.

Apparently, in fact, you seem to have trouble both with a unanimous decision by the US Supreme Court and the whole idea of majority rule. See, the way it works is that if you have a job whose pay and benefits are negotiated by a union, you are required either to be part of the union or to pay the equivalent amount to dues in the form of an "agency fee."

Of course, no one is forced to join a union. But if you want a voice in what the union does via elections, you have to be part of that union. It's through union elections decisions about how to bargain and what political stands the union takes are decided. You're familiar with "elections," aren't you? Those procedures for determining policy by majority vote. I'm sure you know what they are.

As for the rest of your diatribe, you're simply wrong to say that public employee unions in California simply "take your money whether you agree where it goes or not." If you are a non-member, you may, just as in Washington, require that the union return a portion of your agency fee used for poliltical purposes. Of course, if you object to having any of your money taken for negotiating your pay and benefits, you're out of luck. Of course, you're free to work in a non-union job at much lower pay and benefits.

It is interesting that when Wingnuts can't get their facts straight, they so often resort to claims of "liberal BS" and other name calling in place of a coherent argument. It's always worth taking a few moments to watch folks like you sputter and fume when you can't defend your position.

Here is the most recent article from the LA Times, it is still liberal BS.
FOR THE RECORD:
Supreme Court: A headline on an earlier version of this story said the Supreme Court had ruled that public employee unions needed members' explicit approval before using their dues for political advocacy. The court ruled only that states could pass laws to impose such a requirement.. —
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...ack=crosspromo

This is inline with what I meant about liberal BS rip offs;

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (December 20, 1999) - The United States District Court today enjoined the state’s largest public employee union from seizing any additional compulsory union dues illegally taken from the paychecks of more than 30,000 employees throughout the state.

http://www.employee-rights.org/b/nr_172.htm

So, according to the LA Times, the Court decisioni was exactly as I described it. The Court simply found that states could regulate the use of union funds in elections, not that collection of such funds was either illegal or or that contributions be explicitly authorized by individuals. Got it?

As far as the ludicrous description of the injunction form seven plus years ago is concerned, the court in the case found in favor of the union and vacated the injunction. That's why the anti-union forces brought forward Proposition 75 in 2005. It failed at the polls.

Are we clear now?

...you win the, "I am so full of myself award". This entire thread was a win for people that have been strong armed into paying for the political BS of the democrats, that was my point. I don't care to argue every nuance of the law, it doesn't really matter, the unions have been wrong and the tide is turning, people should have a choice and a voice.

So please, crawl back into your self absorbed hole, where you can continue to pat yourself on the back when no one else is watching or really cares.

jsh1120 · #12 (**permalink**) 06-17-2007, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jake";p=&quot

... From now on, as far as unions are concerned in washington, lib causes will be paid for by libs ONLY.

Sorry, but even if you were not wrong about all the other aspects of the decision, you'd be wrong about this one. Even if the Supreme Court had decided the "opt-in/opt-out" issue, which it did not, the case in question only covered the small minority of Washington teachers who are not members of the WEA but pay an "agency fee" for the WEA to represent them. Union members would still have been subject to union rules since they had "opted in" by being members of the union.

You're also incorrect in your previous contention that the WEA did not "tell" those non-members that they had the option of "opting out" of political contributions. The WEA has provided materials making this clear to non-members for years. No one disputed that fact.

jsh1120 · #13 (**permalink**) 06-17-2007, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoBilly";p=&quot

...you win the, "I am so full of myself award". This entire thread was a win for people that have been strong armed into paying for the political BS of the democrats, that was my point. I don't care to argue every nuance of the law, it doesn't really matter, the unions have been wrong and the tide is turning, people should have a choice and a voice.

So please, crawl back into your self absorbed hole, where you can continue to pat yourself on the back when no one else is watching or really cares.

Ah, yes, the standard "I don't really understand the issue at hand and don't care to learn the facts, so leave me alone" response. It's always amusing to watch wingnuts retreat into insults when they don't have facts to support their position. Just remember that the next time you post balderdash from "World Net Daily" that its track record for accuracy rivals Pravda and it might be a good idea to check it out before making a fool of yourself.

Jake · #14 (**permalink**) 06-17-2007, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Teachers and EFF Win Unanimous Victory at U.S. Supreme Court

WASHINGTON, DC—Today the United States Supreme Court announced it has overturned the Washington Supreme Court’s ruling in Washington v. Washington Education Association and Davenport v. Washington Education Association (WEA). The cases are the culmination of a decade’s worth of work by concerned teachers and the Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF), a Washington state think tank. The Court's ruling could potentially affect millions of union-represented workers nationwide.
As reported by SCOTUS Blog: "In the final of three decisions on the merits Thursday, the Court ruled that it is not a violation of the First Amendment for a state to bar a labor union representing government employees from using non-union workers' dues for political causes if those workers have not explicitly consented.

http://effwa.org/main/article.php?ar...2069&number=56

Blink twice if you get it yet.

jsh1120 · #15 (**permalink**) 06-18-2007, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jake";p=&quot

Quote:

Teachers and EFF Win Unanimous Victory at U.S. Supreme Court

WASHINGTON, DC—Today the United States Supreme Court announced it has overturned the Washington Supreme Court’s ruling in Washington v. Washington Education Association and Davenport v. Washington Education Association (WEA). The cases are the culmination of a decade’s worth of work by concerned teachers and the Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF), a Washington state think tank. The Court's ruling could potentially affect millions of union-represented workers nationwide.
As reported by SCOTUS Blog: "In the final of three decisions on the merits Thursday, the Court ruled that it is not a violation of the First Amendment for a state to bar a labor union representing government employees from using non-union workers' dues for political causes if those workers have not explicitly consented.

http://effwa.org/main/article.php?ar...2069&number=56

Blink twice if you get it yet.

I'll try one last time. After this, I suppose I'll just have to assume you cannot read. "...(T)he court ruled that it is not a violation of First Amendment for a state to bar a union representing government employees from using non-union workers' dues for political causes if those workers have not explicitly consented."

That is precisely correct. The WEA argued it WAS a violation of the First Amendment. Therefore, the State of Washington COULD NOT enact a law barring such a requirement. The Court found the state COULD (not must, but COULD) restrict such actions.

The Court did NOT rule that non-union workers' dues COULD NOT be used for political purposes without their consent. It ruled that IF a state enacted such a law, the law would not violate the First Amendment.

The Court did NOT rule on the "opt-in vs opt-out" issue. Presumably either approach is constitutional according to the Court. It is also constitutional for a state to NOT HAVE a law governing this issue. (Forty-nine states have no such law.) In the case of Washington, the state legislature recently changed the law to allow the "opt out" option. This, too, is constitutional according to the Court's decisison.

I'm not sure how many other ways this can be explained to you. The Court did NOT rule directly on the issue you are so concerned about. Its decision was about the First Amendment's extension to public employee unions. It did not cover unions that bargain with private employers. It did not cover union members; it covered non-members. It did not say that non-members of public employee unions must "opt in" in order to have their agency fees used for political purposes; it said that states may pass legislation requiring such a procedure without violating the First Amendment.

If you cannot understand that the Court did not rule as you believe it did, I suppose I'll just leave it to you to discover that the ruling had absolutely no effect on the California unions you're concerned about. Perhaps then you'll understand.

P.S. Had Proposition 75 in California passed in 2005, according to this SC decision, it would not have violated the First Amendment. However, as repeatedly pointed out to you, Proposition 75 did not pass. Take it up with California voters.

raytri · #16 (**permalink**) 06-18-2007, 08:51 AM

Bronco, Jake: Jsh1120 has explained it pretty clearly something like three times now. What about his posts are you failing to understand?

The unions lost the right to be the sole decider on whether dues used for political activity are "opt-in" or "opt-out." Unlike Jsh, I think "opt-in" is appropriate. But all the court did is say that the matter was something for states, not unions, to decide.

Unions can still collect dues-equivalents from nonmembers -- a variation of "closed shop" rules. Unions can still use member funds for anything they want, subject to the votes of those members.

It is, frankly, a fairly uncontroversial ruling. Which would explain why it was unanimous.

BroncoBilly · #17 (**permalink**) 06-18-2007, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsh1120";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jake";p=&quot

Quote:

Teachers and EFF Win Unanimous Victory at U.S. Supreme Court

WASHINGTON, DC—Today the United States Supreme Court announced it has overturned the Washington Supreme Court’s ruling in Washington v. Washington Education Association and Davenport v. Washington Education Association (WEA). The cases are the culmination of a decade’s worth of work by concerned teachers and the Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF), a Washington state think tank. The Court's ruling could potentially affect millions of union-represented workers nationwide.
As reported by SCOTUS Blog: "In the final of three decisions on the merits Thursday, the Court ruled that it is not a violation of the First Amendment for a state to bar a labor union representing government employees from using non-union workers' dues for political causes if those workers have not explicitly consented.

http://effwa.org/main/article.php?ar...2069&number=56

Blink twice if you get it yet.

I'll try one last time. After this, I suppose I'll just have to assume you cannot read. "...(T)he court ruled that it is not a violation of First Amendment for a state to bar a union representing government employees from using non-union workers' dues for political causes if those workers have not explicitly consented."

That is precisely correct. The WEA argued it WAS a violation of the First Amendment. Therefore, the State of Washington COULD NOT enact a law barring such a requirement. The Court found the state COULD (not must, but COULD) restrict such actions.

The Court did NOT rule that non-union workers' dues COULD NOT be used for political purposes without their consent. It ruled that IF a state enacted such a law, the law would not violate the First Amendment.

The Court did NOT rule on the "opt-in vs opt-out" issue. Presumably either approach is constitutional according to the Court. It is also constitutional for a state to NOT HAVE a law governing this issue. (Forty-nine states have no such law.) In the case of Washington, the state legislature recently changed the law to allow the "opt out" option. This, too, is constitutional according to the Court's decisison.

I'm not sure how many other ways this can be explained to you. The Court did NOT rule directly on the issue you are so concerned about. Its decision was about the First Amendment's extension to public employee unions. It did not cover unions that bargain with private employers. It did not cover union members; it covered non-members. It did not say that non-members of public employee unions must "opt in" in order to have their agency fees used for political purposes; it said that states may pass legislation requiring such a procedure without violating the First Amendment.

If you cannot understand that the Court did not rule as you believe it did, I suppose I'll just leave it to you to discover that the ruling had absolutely no effect on the California unions you're concerned about. Perhaps then you'll understand.

P.S. Had Proposition 75 in California passed in 2005, according to this SC decision, it would not have violated the First Amendment. However, as repeatedly pointed out to you, Proposition 75 did not pass. Take it up with California voters.

...but poignantly stupid. How you can not find this to be a victory for those that have been continually ripped off by liberal democrat unions is beyond me. With this new ruling it hopefully will return to the ballot in California and stop the unions from taking money from those that disagree with them. Alas, I regress, you're a liberal democrat, and it is OK with you to rip people off as long as it benefits the collective base.

jsh1120 · #18 (**permalink**) 06-18-2007, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raytri";p=&quot

Bronco, Jake: Jsh1120 has explained it pretty clearly something like three times now. What about his posts are you failing to understand?...

Thank God. A voice of reason.

BroncoBilly · #19 (**permalink**) 06-18-2007, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raytri";p=&quot

Bronco, Jake: Jsh1120 has explained it pretty clearly something like three times now. What about his posts are you failing to understand?

The unions lost the right to be the sole decider on whether dues used for political activity are "opt-in" or "opt-out." Unlike Jsh, I think "opt-in" is appropriate. But all the court did is say that the matter was something for states, not unions, to decide.

Unions can still collect dues-equivalents from nonmembers -- a variation of "closed shop" rules. Unions can still use member funds for anything they want, subject to the votes of those members.

It is, frankly, a fairly uncontroversial ruling. Which would explain why it was unanimous.

When I originally made my post the article was read as to be a opt in or out, then it was later updated in the LA Times. I still think unions stink for taking money from those that disagree with them.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...ck=2&cset=true

jsh1120 · #20 (**permalink**) 06-18-2007, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoBilly";p=&quot

...but poignantly stupid. How you can not find this to be a victory for those that have been continually ripped off by liberal democrat unions is beyond me. With this new ruling it hopefully will return to the ballot in California and stop the unions from taking money from those that disagree with them. Alas, I regress, you're a liberal democrat, and it is OK with you to rip people off as long as it benefits the collective base.

As it happens we're all "ripped off" to one extent or another by organizations with which we have disageements. I'm not allowed, for example, to direct my taxes to specific causes I favor. Nor, for that matter, do the corporations in which I hold stock check with me when they engage in political activities. In that case, in fact, the voices of shareholders are not even equal, as they are in union elections, they're weighted by the number of shares each shareholder has. So I stand even less chance than an individual union member in shifting the political activities of a particular corporation.

Of course, I may, if I choose, withdraw my investments from companies whose political stances I find abhorrent. And if I'm sufficiently unhappy with my government, I can move to another country (sometimes.) Likewise, a union member may vote for union officials more in tune with his/her politics. And if she/he voluntarily refrains from being a member of a union, he/she may, if state law allows it, opt in or opt out of contributions unrelated to her/his wages, benefits, and working conditions. In the extreme, he/she may elect to get another job.

In short, both members and non-members of unions have considerably more voice with regard to the political activities of a union than a shareholder has with regard to the politics engaged in by a public corporation. And considerably more voice in the activities of their unions than in the actions of their government.

Oddly, I don't hear conservatives complaining about the unfairness of the voice accorded to small stockholders, especially consdering the fact that corporate voices are much better financed than unions in American politics.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode