Here is another whack the liberal democrats took this week.


Teachers' free speech trumps union politics

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=56178

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.

Well, as usual, "World Net Daily" got it about one quarter right. The issue was not, as World Net Daily claimed, that the WEA Teachers Union was "stealing" fees from unwilling non-members for political purposes. The WEA has always provided a simple check box on a form so that any non-member could prevent the union from using a portion of their "agency fees," the equvalent of dues, for political purposes.

The conflict had to do with whether it was the responsibility of the teacher to "opt out" of supporting such fees or to "opt in" by authorizing the use of such fees. That issue, however, was not determined by the US Supreme Court. Instead, the Court simply found that states (in this case Washington) have the power to determine which way the procedure should operate rather than finding (as the Washington Supreme Court had found) that the union itself was free to determine the procedure without regulation by the State.

As far as this being a case of "whacking liberal Democrats," it is worth noting that the SCOTUS decision was unanimous, including all four of those (*)(*)(*)(*) "liberal" justices.

Finally, the effect of the ruling is decidedly limited since (a) no other state besides Washington has a law enabling the state to make this determination; (b) well over 95% of all Washington teachers are members of the WEA while this affects the agency fees of only the non-members; and (c) most importantly, the Washington legislature in 2007 changed the law to conform to the WEA's current practice, a power the US Supreme Court decided in the case in question was within the legislature's power.

In short, this ruling gave the Washington legislature, controlled by "liberal Democrats," the power to regulate union practice with regard to political spending of non-members' fees. Not exactly a "whack" for "liberal Democrats."

Rather than uncritically posting nonsense from such sources as "World Net Daily" it would take you only about 60 seconds (as it took me) to google the case in question and determine what the Court really decided. Or you can simply post nonsense from Wingnut websites and expect others to point out you don't know what you're talking about. Let me guess what your choice will be.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...&type=politics

http://cms.washingtonea.org/index.ph...sk=view&id=929

__________________
"To announce that..we are to stand by the president whether right or wrong..is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt, 1918

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.

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.

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.

__________________
"To announce that..we are to stand by the president whether right or wrong..is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt, 1918

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

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.

This is a HUGE victory for freedom, and against one of the most backward, destructive forces in politics - the teachers unions. That teachers should be forced to pay for political activism on issues not connected with teachers and for causes they don't agree with has been a colossal outrage.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/w...78422&ROS=true

__________________
Read this post quick before the mods delete it!

YES!!

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

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?

__________________
"To announce that..we are to stand by the president whether right or wrong..is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt, 1918

The difference is that formerly, nonmembers were forced to opt-out, when many of them didn't know of that right (obviously, unions weren't going to tell them) and those that did know of it faced union stonewalling and pressure of various kinds. Forcing the unions to get nonmembers to explicitly opt in, does, as I said, make a HUGE difference in unions plundering nonmembers paychecks - if it didn't, why do you think they would fight ot all the way to the supreme court? From now on, as far as unions are concerned in washington, lib causes will be paid for by libs ONLY.

__________________
Read this post quick before the mods delete it!

Would you care to cite ANY evidence that what you say above is true? It's not. The Court did NOT rule on the question of "opt in/opt out," despite the fact that that was the controversy that prompted the case in the first place.

What the Court decided was that STATES have the power to regulate this issue rather than leaving it to the unions to determine. (That's why the decision was UNANIMOUS!) In the specific case in Washington, the SCOTUS sent the case back to the Washington state courts to decide whether the WEA had been in conformance with state law. (The Washington State Supreme Court had decided the state of Washington did NOT have the power to regulate the issue and found for the WEA against the State of Washington.)

As it happens, the Washington State Legislature had already resolved the issue in the future for Washington by siding with the WEA earlier this year. The SCOTUS decision in effect ratified the State's power to do so.

The confusion over this issue stems from the fact that the SCOTUS often issues decisions that are not exactly on point in terms of the controversy that originally prompted the case before them. That's the case here. The Supreme Court authorized states to pass laws about "opt in/opt out," rejecting the union's argument that its "freedom of speech" was infringed by the State of Washington's election laws. Therefore (according to the union) the law should be declared unconstitutional. The Court rejected that argument. (Both liberals and conservatives on the Court rejected it, resulting in the UNANIMOUS decision.)

The effect of the decision was limited by the fact that ONLY Washington State has tried to implement such a law. (As noted, the effort in California applying to public employee unions failed in November 2005. Try googling Proposition 75.)

The decision was indeed a defeat for unions' power to determine how to handle the "opt in/opt out" issue without interference from the individual states. It was NOT a defeat for "liberals" who believe the issue should be determined by legislation, not left to unions' own discretion to determine. (For example, I happen to support the decision though I also support the "opt out" approach.)

If you check the details of the case, you'll find your contentions above are incorrect. The WEA and other unions fought the case to the Washington Supreme Court (and won) in order to retain their discretion on the "opt in/opt out" issue. The State of Washington (and various anti-union groups) then took it to the US Supreme Court. The State of Washington "won" its point that the state had the power to legislate in this area. The anti-union groups hoped the SCOTUS would decide in favor of "opt in" rules as a matter of law. They "lost" in the sense that the SCOTUS refused to decide the issue.

P.S. I live in Washington State and have the benefit of having followed the case and the state legislation surrounding it. Believe me. This decision changes nothing since the Democratic legislature ratified the "opt out" approach a few months ago, a law that has now been approved (in effect) by this SCOTUS decision.

__________________
"To announce that..we are to stand by the president whether right or wrong..is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt, 1918