Posted on 04/07/2008 12:48:45 PM PDT by SmithL
Should government workers be forced to pay for political activities with which they disagree to keep their jobs? That was the fundamental question underlying the case federal court Judge Morrison England decided last week. In a ruling that relied on simple fairness and federal law, Judge England said no.
In the case before the court, the Services Employees International Union Local 1000 had imposed a special assessment on state workers it represented to bankroll its "Political Fight-Back Fund." The fund was established in 2005 to finance the union's campaign against Propositions 75 and 76, two measures on the November ballot that year, pushed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
The union deducted $12 million from the paychecks of 92,500 of its state worker members to support SEIU's campaign to defeat the initiatives. Some 28,000 non-union workers, state employees who opt not to join the union but are required to pay fees to finance the union's bargaining activities from which they benefit, were also forced to pay. That's where the union tripped up. The non-union members sued to get their money back, and last week they prevailed.
Good for them. Imagine a committed Democrat being forced to contribute to a Republican candidate for governor in order to keep her state job, or a Republican forced to fork over a portion of his state salary to a Democratic candidate. Such practices are grossly unfair. So is forcing those same government employees to contribute to finance initiative campaigns they do not agree with.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
SIEU and AFSCME claims to represent the working man are complete BS. THey are legally-supported monopolists and political lobby groups that can only exist in Government.
SIEU and AFSCME claims to represent the working man are complete BS. THey are legally-supported monopolists and political lobby groups that can only exist in Government.As a
You lurkers should think about that and how you would respond, if a state government one dominated by Republicans for over 50 years, did the same thing to you.
From a Cato policy analysis piece:
On April 13, 1992, in what many consider to be nothing more than an act of political opportunism, President Bush issued Executive Order 12800, which requires all federal contractors to inform their employees of their "Beck rights." The order stems from a 1988 U.S. Supreme Court opinion, Communications Workers of America v. Beck, in which the Court declared that employees forced to pay union dues under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) do not have to contribute to a union's partisan political activities. The Communications Workers of America had been using as much as 79 percent of Harry Beck's dues for such activities, almost all in support of Democratic party candidates. blah...blah...blah..
These union workers need to know their rights.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.