Union case goes to high court

As reported here, The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to decide whether public employee unions must get special permission before spending some workers' dues on political causes.

Justices accepted an appeal from the state of Washington that involves fees paid to the Washington Education Association by teachers who decline to join the union.

Those workers still can be charged dues by the union to help pay for labor negotiations that affect them. But they can't be forced to pay for the union's political activism, under a string of Supreme Court rulings that reach back nearly 30 years.

At issue is whether the union needs teachers to say "yes" before the fees can be used for political causes or whether teachers must specifically object to having a portion of their fees spent for that purpose.

The court will hear arguments in the case, as well as a related lawsuit by five teachers to recover their fees, early next year.

State voters in 1992 adopted a campaign finance law that requires unions to get the consent of each worker before spending fees on political activity. The law also required the unions to refund the fee to teachers who did not agree with the political activity the union was proposing.

The Washington Supreme Court overturned the requirement that union officials get worker consent, saying the union's annual offer to reduce fees for any non-member who registers an objection to the political spending is sufficient.

The state court said that forcing the union to seek permission from each worker violated the union's free speech rights.

The three dissenters on the state Supreme Court, however, said the ruling "turned the First Amendment on its head," by valuing the rights of the union above those of individuals.

I'm happy that the USSC is going to hear this appeal of the WSSC, in effect, legislating from the bench in this case. The teachers union, the WEA, is about as liberal a union as there is, while not all teachers are. The current majority of the justices on the WSSC are also very liberal, and in declaring the 1992 state campaign finance law "unconstitutional" were showing their support for unions, rather than the people of the state of Washington as is their mandate (with the exception, of course, of the 3 dissenters).

In my opinion, unions should be prohibited from any political activity whatsoever, even if their entire membership ascribes to the political activity that the union wants to engage in. The primary role - which should be the only role of any union - is to represent their membership in the negotiation of wages and benefits with an employer. (Oh, and case you're wondering, yes I have been a union member - of three different unions - but I am not currently a union member.)

There are plenty of other outlets that allow people to be involved in the political activism of their choice. It's ludicrous that members of a union be forced to pay for political activities that they do not ascribe too, and the hope here is that the USSC will see it that way too.