In February 2018, I altered my flight plans home from Iceland to detour to Washington, DC. Among so many other exciting activities, I gave a speech on the sidewalk in front of the Supreme Court and stood behind Mark Janus as he talked to the press after the Court heard his case.
Four months later, as I walked among the Mayan ruins at Tulum, I got the word so many of us had hoped for. It was five years ago today.
Unions are private organizations and should not be subsidized by taxpayers:
California is a hotbed of toxic policy ideas, yet Michigan and Delaware seem to think it sets an example: Both states recently proposed California-like tax credits for union dues, which, in effect, force taxpayers to subsidize Democratic candidates and policies.
Last fall, the Golden State’s Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill forcing California taxpayers to pay up to $400 million of public and private employees’ union dues via tax-credit subsidies...
Edward Capodanno, president of the Associated Builders and Contractors Delaware, blasts the legislation as unfair because it favors a specific group.
His association is lobbying against it, correctly arguing that employees at many companies pay membership dues to business organizations and trade associations but don’t get a similar tax credit.
How can you convince a leftie this is wrong, and simultaneously show that Democrats are bad and that Republicans don't do the same thing when they have power? Point out that no Republican-controlled state requires payment to the NRA.
In theory, I have nothing against unions. When I had to give money to unions I was absolutely against forced unionism and I was against bad unions (unions that don't help their members), both of which were the case with me, but in most cases I think Americans should be allowed to join unions if they want to. And bless Mark Janus for helping ensure that government workers, at least, no longer have to pay unions.
Under the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, states can still compel private employees to pay unions. Over half the states in the union have passed right-to-work laws, which allowed workers to have jobs without having to pay money to a union. Michigan, now run by leftie Democrats, is undoing what was done:
In a major victory for labor unions, Michigan on Friday became the first state in more than half a century to repeal a right-to-work law.
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed legislation passed by the Democratic-controlled Legislature, overturning a 2012 GOP law that allowed workers to choose not to join unions or pay union dues as a condition of employment, even if the union represents them in negotiations.
Michigan had been making some progress. Now, back to the Rust Belt with them!
The state is going to pay your union dues for you? What possible legitimate reason could there be for this?
California union members could receive tax credits to reimburse a portion of their dues payments under a bill awaiting Gov. Gavin Newsom’s signature. Assembly Bill 158, approved by the Legislature in June, doesn’t specify the size of the credits for most dues-payers. The bill instead sets out lawmakers’ intent to provide $400 million worth of the credits starting in 2024. It asks the state Franchise Tax Board to develop proposals for how much money union members might be able to get back — calculated as a percentage of their dues — with a $400 million allocation.
Franklin Roosevelt wasn't right about much, but even he was right about public sector unions--he was strongly against them.
In February 2018, I altered my flight plans home from Iceland to detour to Washington, DC. Among so many other exciting activities, I gave a speech on the sidewalk in front of the Supreme Court and stood behind Mark Janus as he talked to the press after the Court heard his case.
Four months later, as I walked among the Mayan ruins at Tulum, I got the word so many of us had hoped for. It was four years ago today.
From Freedom Foundation's press release:
(OLYMPIA, WASH.) – In the real world, taking someone else’s money without their permission is theft. And trying to conceal the original offense by forging the victim’s name on a document giving you permission would only compound your guilt.
But in the corrupt and desperate alternate universe of government employee unions, forging the name of an unwitting worker on a membership contract in order to continue confiscating his or her regular dues payments seems to be standard operating procedure.
In court, union lawyers argue that the illegality of forgery means the plaintiffs cannot recover under the constitution.
On May 12, the Freedom Foundation — a national, nonprofit government watchdog group specializing in the unlawful activities of public-sector unions — submitted final reply briefs in four separate lawsuits alleging union forgery.
The cases — three in Oregon and one in California — are not entirely identical, but in each the defense is advancing the argument that neither the union nor the state collecting unauthorized dues on its behalf is violating the Constitution.
In the case of the states, attorneys representing both Oregon and California insist they are merely the collection agent for the unions, which specify whose check is to be garnished and for how much. As for the unions, they argue they can’t be sued because they are not state actors.
Public-sector unions like the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) have been on the defensive since U.S. Supreme Court rulings like Harris v. Quinn (2014) and Janus v. AFSCME (2018) recognized the First Amendment rights of public employees to decline union participation.
The unions routinely place roadblocks in the paths of employees asking to end their union membership, and the standard union defense is to argue a signed membership contract supersedes the Constitution. It doesn’t, but in any case, a forged contract requires the union to concoct an even more convoluted defense.
In one of the three Oregon cases, Zielinski v. SEIU 503, union lawyers attempt to use the forgery to escape culpability by asserting, “A private party’s alleged actions that violate state law and are not condoned by any identified state practice have no source in state policy and therefore are not ‘under color of law.’”
“No amount of legal gymnastics can hide that (the) respondents claim they are relieved of liability under the First Amendment, not because of an employee’s voluntary agreement, but because of a union’s fraud,” wrote Freedom Foundation attorney James Abernathy in the California case, Quezambra v. United Domestic Workers of America.
The other two Oregon cases, Cash Schiewe v. SEIU 503 and Wright v. SEIU 503 involve electronic forgeries. The unions continue to contend the First Amendment doesn’t apply because the unions were not “state actors” and were not operating “under color of state law.”
The union says we are complaining about the forgery, which state law prohibits and cannot be an official state policy (required for state action),” explained Freedom Foundation Senior Litigation Counsel Eric Stahlfeld. “We’re actually complaining about the state of Oregon taking lawfully earned wages from an employee’s paycheck. Only when the union argues that money can be diverted into its hand based on the cards do we say there is no private contract, but a forgery.
“Even if the union forged the signatures, we would not be complaining if the state did not divert the lawfully earned wages to the union,” he said. “The union can forge as many signatures on cards as it wants, but there is no harm until the state takes the money. Therefore, the wrongful act is the state diverting the money. The union is on the hook because it is using the CBA and state statute to demand and require the state to divert that money.”
“It beggars belief that we have to counter such weak arguments in civil court at all,” said Freedom Foundation CEO Aaron Withe. “Forgery is a crime, and whoever is responsible for committing or authorizing it should be behind bars. But for obvious reasons prosecutors in overwhelmingly liberal states have little stomach for seeing their union allies in handcuffs, so the Freedom Foundation has to offer protections the workers should really be able to take for granted.”
Gotta love this screenshot from Instapundit:
click to enlarge
Democrats only want to pack the Court, eliminate the Electoral College, get rid of the filibuster, and reduce from 60 to 50 the number of senators needed to confirm judges--when they're losing. Imagine what their views on a "living Constitution" must be like! Oh, wait, we don't have to imagine, they tell us every day.
The Founders were wise men who understood human nature--they understood that win-at-any-cost people will always be among us, and they designed our Constitution to keep those base instincts at arm's length. Leftists, however, will do anything to undermine our constitutional safeguards--because so often, their ideas can't win on the merits.
Let's take just the Electoral College, a brilliant way to ensure that an elected president has wide appeal. Twice in the last 20 years the winner of the electoral college was not the winner of the popular vote, and 4 times in the last 30 years the winner of the electoral college did not receive a majority of the popular vote (because of Ross Perot's 3rd party candidacy, President Clinton earned less than 50% of the popular vote in each of his electoral victories).
As in football, the rules of electoral politics are understood before the "game" begins. Want to eliminate the electoral college because a couple times you lost by a count that isn't even part of the rules? It would be like scoring 3 field goals (9 pts) vs the other team's 2 touchdowns (12 pts), and complaining that since you scored more times that you should have won the game. It's a silly, childish, undignified response, but that is what Democrats and their fellow leftists are--silly, childish, undignified, and often dangerous.
Even Democrats were aghast when President Roosevelt threatened to "pack" the Supreme Court, a view that doesn't even get a sideways glance from leftists today. Roosevelt was against labor unions for government employees, which are now the vast majority of unionized employees in this country. The 1996 Democratic Party platform for President Clinton's reelection bragged about putting 100,000 new police officers on the streets and explained why illegal immigration was so bad for the United States. The Democrats have moved so far to the left.
They'll say and do whatever they need to in order to win. They'll even threaten the country with "Vote for Biden or we'll burn the cities down".
Democrats cannot be trusted with power. It's bad when they win, it's almost as bad when they lose.
Freedom Foundation Sues San Bernardino County Over Information Request DenialUnder California’s Public Records Act, public agencies have an obligation to honor every document request unless there is a specific exemption in state law for the information being sought. And the burden of proof is on the agency to justify any refusal to comply.
But a lawsuit filed on Monday accuses San Bernardino County of systematically refusing to hand over contact information about public employees because it knows the group making the request is on a mission to inform the workers about a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that recognizes their right to opt out of union membership, dues and fees.
“Public records laws exist to ensure government agencies are transparent and accountable,” said Shella Sadovnik, an attorney with the Freedom Foundation, which has been trying to obtain the documents since March 12. “They were not created to protect the monopoly labor unions have traditionally enjoyed in the public workplace.”
The Freedom Foundation, with offices in California, Oregon, Washington, Ohio and Pennsylvania, has a vigorous outreach program whose goal is to educate government employees about Janus v. AFSCME, a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court ruling affirming that compulsory support of a labor union — whether through member dues or so-called “agency fees” charged to nonmembers — is a violation of the First Amendment.
But in order to inform the workers, the Freedom Foundation must first know who they are and how to reach them.
Basic contact information — such as the worker’s full name, birthdate, work email, etc. — has always been public, since the employees are paid by state taxes. In fact, it was readily provided to the unions, who use it for organizing purposes.
But in the wake of Janus, the unions stand to lose billions in dues revenues if public employees suddenly realize membership and dues are now voluntary. Consequently, they’re exerting considerable pressure on public agencies to deny workers’ contact information to organizations like the Freedom Foundation, which hope to spread a message that unions don’t want their members to hear.
In the San Bernardino lawsuit, county personnel officials responded to the Freedom Foundation information request by insisting they do not maintain records of which employees are represented by a union — even though the state deducts dues from the workers’ paychecks and forwards the money to their respective union.
Further, the county asserts:
- the records fall under a public-interest exemption;
- the disclosure of contact details would constitute an unwarranted invasion of the workers’ personal privacy; and,
- it could expose workers to safety concerns.
“All of their objections are bogus,” Sadovnik said.
“First, the burden is on the public agency to show the public’s need for nondisclosure,” she explained. “The county has provided no such reason. Further, the Freedom Foundation is not seeking personnel, medical or private employee files, so the privacy concerns are inapplicable in this case. Nor are there any safety issues when you’re providing already-public information.”
The lawsuit, filed in San Bernardino Superior Court, lists San Bernardino County as the lone defendant and seeks release of the requested documents plus a declaration from the county admitting it erred in withholding them.
A similar lawsuit was filed May 12 by the Freedom Foundation in Sacramento Superior Court against CalHR, and the state of California to obtain publicly disclosable information — under the California Public Records Act.
“Public records laws assume everything a government does is open to scrutiny unless there’s a good reason it shouldn’t be,” Sadovnik said. “Keeping government employees in the dark about their rights so their union can continue to plunder their paychecks isn’t a good reason.”
A complaint filed on May 12 against California’s Department of Human Resources seeks to establish whether the agency works for the state residents and taxpayers or for the powerful labor unions that control most of its public employees.
The action, filed in Sacramento Superior Court, alleges officials at Human Resources wrongly refused to comply with two sets of information requests filed by the Freedom Foundation, a nonpartisan public policy organization specializing in exposing abuses by government employee unions.
“Both requests were submitted correctly, and the information sought is undeniably disclosable under the California Public Records Act (CPRA),” said Bob Wickers, the Freedom Foundation’s California director. “If any other organization had asked for these documents, the state would have handed them over without a second thought. But the unions are terrified of the Freedom Foundation and the HR Department believes it’s their job to protect the unions — even if that means breaking the law.”
On Jan. 23, the Freedom Foundation submitted a request for the total number of state employees paid by the State of California in each month of 2018 and 2019 and, for each of the 21 state of California bargaining units, the following information:
After several delays, HR Department officials on Feb. 24 denied the request, claiming that, under the CPRA, they could not release records that are “part of the collective bargaining process.”
- name of bargaining unit representative (labor organization);
- agencies/departments represented;
- the total number of employees in the bargaining unit who were paid by the state of California in each month of 2018 and 2019;
- the total number of employees in the bargaining unit who were paid by the state of California and who had union dues or fees withheld from their pay in each month of 2018 and 2019; and,
- the total amount of union dues/fees withheld by the state of California from the pay of employees in the bargaining unit in each month of 2018 and 2019.
On March 12, the Freedom Foundation submitted a second information request, this time seeking for every public employee in the state:
Once again, the request was denied, citing the same reasons as in the first request and adding that they did not own the records in question and therefore could not release them.
- full name;
- month and year of birth (excluding day);
- job classification title and code;
- employee identification number;
- hire date;
- current pay rate/salary;
- FTE status/percentage;
- work email address;
- worksite/duty station address; and, bargaining unit number.
“Their excuses don’t pass the laugh test,” Wickers said. “It doesn’t matter whether HR owns the records in dispute. They have to disclose anything ‘prepared, owned, used or retained by it.’ And none of the documents requested are related to state ‘deliberative processes or to the training of employees who do not have full collective bargaining and representation.’ The Freedom Foundation is entitled to these records.”
The Freedom Foundation makes no secret of why it wants the information.
“We want to contact public employees to notify them about a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that did away with mandatory union membership and dues in the public sector,” Wickers said. “The unions desperately want to keep that information from the workers because everyone who opts out represents $800 to $1,000 a year in dues money.
“We understand why the unions want to keep the members in the dark about their rights,” he said. “What we don’t understand is why a taxpayer-funded state agency feels it needs to be a partner in the conspiracy.”
Wickers said the complaint filed on May 4 asks that HR either provide the requested information or show cause why the court “should not issue such a writ and thereafter issue a peremptory writ compelling defendant to perform its public duty as set forth above.”
Breaking the law once might be excusable, but breaking the same one a second time is clear evidence of contempt for authority.I like this part:
So imagine what it says about government employee unions on the West Coast that the Freedom Foundation has identified at least 12 cases where someone in the union forged a worker’s name to authorize the union to deduct dues or political contributions from his or her paycheck.
In fact, the organization on Monday filed federal lawsuits on behalf of five separate public employees in Washington, Oregon and California alleging their union not only created false documents but cited those same documents to justify keeping the workers — and their dues dollars — in the union.
“When the Supreme Court in Janus affirmed the right of public employees to opt out of union participation, it didn’t mean they could only do so under strict guidelines drawn up by the union. And it certainly didn’t give the unions permission to engage in fraud to regain what Janus took away."Our next story comes from Los Angeles and its execrable teachers union president:
Sadly, though, there are some who are using these trying times to advance their political agenda. And quite prominent in that ugly crowd is Alex Caputo-Pearl, president of United Teachers of Los Angeles.Read the whole thing.
In a classic case of “never-let-a-good-crisis-go-to-waste,” Caputo-Pearl ripped off a missive to Los Angeles Unified School District superintendent Austin Beutner and the L.A. school board on March 26th. Incoherently invoking the coronavirus, the union leader is demanding “a moratorium on the approval of any new charter schools” and “that LAUSD halt all new proposed charter co-locations for the 2020-21 school year.” At the very end of the harangue, he gets to his real point. “Los Angeles is already over-saturated with charter schools and loses over $600 million/year in resources to unregulated charter growth. It is time to stop the bleeding and ensure that our existing classrooms and students are appropriately funded and protected.”
Not surprisingly, California Charter Schools Association president Myrna Castrejón fumed at Caputo-Pearl’s epistle, and in a blistering rejoinder, accused him of demeaning charter families instead of showing compassion. “You demanded the eviction of charter students and teachers from the learning space provided to them by voter-approved law when they need your support. And, you resurrected your all-too-familiar demands for a charter school ban. You labeled charter students, families, and staff as unique hazards to public health, stoking perverse and unfounded division.” She went on to describe his tactics as shameful, dangerous, and dehumanizing, using COVID-19 to advance his political agenda.
Officials at the University of California at Santa Cruz said they were “left with no choice” but to fire the students, who say they need a cost-of-living adjustment in order to live nearby.More details:
The University of California, Santa Cruz fired 54 teaching assistants (TAs) Friday after they went on strike for higher wages.Those of you who want more government, who think government is always the solution against evil capitalist ways--this is government, this is the University of California system.
The graduate students began withholding final fall grades as part of a wildcat strike not approved by union leadership. Striking assistants said the wage increase was necessary to keep up with the cost of living.
"We are sympathetic to the high cost of housing in Santa Cruz and the pressure this puts on TAs, but a wildcat strike is not the way to get relief," university President Janet Napolitano said in a Feb. 14 letter to the striking students, CNN reported.
The students also said that in addition to the 54 fired students, 28 other TAs were sent notices that they would not be considered for such positions in the next semester.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) responded to the firings Friday, calling them “disgraceful” and asking Napolitano and the university to “stop this outrageous union busting and negotiate in good faith"...
The university has filed an unfair labor practice charge against the union for failing to stop the strike in keeping with its collective bargaining agreement. The union counterfiled its own charge, saying the school has refused to meet with the union to negotiate cost-of-living adjustments.
Government-union membership fell again in 2019, continuing a decade-long decline. Workers in public-sector unions now number 7.066 million, representing a drop of nearly 100,000 in one year and the smallest government-organized labor membership in 20 years. Since 2009, when the ranks of government-union members peaked at 7.896 million, public-labor groups have lost more than 10 percent of their membership. The percentage of government workers belonging to unions has dropped to 33.6, the smallest proportion of the government workforce since 1978. The most recent numbers illustrate how government unions continue to suffer from the hangover of the recession of 2008-2009, in part because of a slow rebound in government employment during the economic expansion that began in 2010. The numbers may also reflect some losses that unions have suffered in the wake of the 2018 Supreme Court Janus decision, which gave public-sector workers the right to opt out of joining a union or paying fees...I was there, standing next to Rebecca Friedrichs:
Even the most heavily unionized, labor-friendly states have seen sharp declines in unionization. Government-union membership in California fell by 164,000 between 2009 and 2018, though the state has as many public-sector jobs as it did before the crash. About half of all government workers in California now belong to a union, down from more than 57 percent. New York has lost 123,000 union members over the same time period. Government-union membership has shrunk by 45,000 in Illinois, by more than 42,000 in New Jersey, and by more than 13,000 in Connecticut. link
AB5 puts into law a California Supreme Court decision making it harder for companies to classify workers as independent contractors. The bill would make those companies classify their workers as employees instead.Here are some of the issues with this bill:
Last month, Uber and other app-based businesses that rely on gig workers said they would spend $90 million on a ballot initiative that would exempt them from AB5, if it becomes law.
While the bill's impact on gig economy companies has drawn most of the attention, it would affect a wide array of industries.
But on Tuesday, California's State Senate passed a bill that threatens to destroy all that. Assembly Bill 5 (A.B.5) would require companies like Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, and more to treat contractors like employees. This would involve offering benefits like sick and vacation days, health insurance, and other "protections" under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, or the Civil Rights Act. Minimum wage, overtime pay, and unemployment insurance would also be involved.Another view:
All this can add 30 percent to labor costs, hitting gig employers hard. Yet all this also undermines the basic idea of the gig economy, by trying to pigeonhole flexible gig workers into the traditional employee mold — with set hours, company equipment, and a company workspace...
In the health care sector, doctors, dentists, psychologists, and podiatrists are exempt from A.B. 5, but many other medical professionals — like behavioral therapists and optometrists — are not. Hospitals rely on independent contractors to fill gaps when employees are on leave. These contractors, like gig economy workers, value their independence and autonomy.
Newspapers and other media outlets also use independent contractors to deliver papers to homes and businesses. New language was added to the bill exempting freelance writers and photojournalists from the rules, but only if they send in 35 or fewer submissions to a single publication in a single year. Requiring papers to hire delivery workers as employees could add 30 percent to labor costs, further weakening the viability of local newspapers.
Many of California's 70,000 truck drivers own their own rigs in order to work independently...
Ironically, the bill may also hit franchisers who operate as small business owners. California has 76,000 franchise businesses, and an expert warned that A.B. 5 "would essentially convert these business owners into employees overnight." Anyone who owns a McDonald's or other franchise would become an employee of McDonald's, and so would all their workers. This would require enormous restructuring across various sectors of the economy.
Language translators, youth sports coaches, and some nonprofits have sought exemptions or registered objections to A.B. 5. Said's article also noted that independent musicians, who hire engineers, dancers, background vocalists, and other contract workers, may have to formally employ them under the bill when it becomes law.
Liberals have hailed the bill as an opportunity to give many workers "basic labor rights for the first time," but people do not join Uber or Lyft as contract drivers in pursuit of a 9-5 day job. Organized labor and government-mandated benefits are Kryptonite to the gig economy — and many more contractors.
Janitors cleaning downtown office buildings, truckers loading goods at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, construction workers building new homes, manicurists, medical technicians, nightclub strippers and even software coders would be among scores of occupations offered protection against long-documented workplace abuses...It's not "misclassification" just because you disagree with it, LA Times.
Some 400,000 Californians are estimated to work either part-time or full-time for fast-growing platform-based technology companies, offering an array of services such as rides, food deliveries, household repairs and dog-walking.
App-based companies argue they offer a different employment model — innovative and flexible — and should thus be exempted from AB 5. They say that as contractors, their workers can set their own schedules and work for multiple companies. AB 5 could cost the firms millions of dollars, hindering future profitability...
State officials estimate California loses some $7 billion a year in payroll taxes due to misclassification. Nor do companies pay Social Security or Medicare taxes for contractors.
California’s new law aims to force the likes of Uber, Lyft and Postmates to classify workers as employees, not independent contractors. But the main force pushing for the law is organized labor, because these arrangements make unionizing difficult.
Sure, advocates claim the idea is to make companies offer benefits like health insurance and end exemptions from minimum-wage and overtime laws. Yet everyone working as an independent contractor knows the deal before they sign up. They take it because they see other benefits, from the ability to work for many different “bosses” to the power to control their own work schedules.
And the California law already has lots of happy workers worried....
Fewer than 15 percent of California workers were members of a union in 2018, the lowest union membership rate in at least 35 years, according to new data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.My goal was never to destroy unions, it was not to be compelled to pay them.
About 14.7 percent of the state’s workers belong to a union in 2018, down from 15.5 percent in 2017. The number of California union members fell by about 85,000 from 2017 to 2018, even as the state added more than 300,000 new workers.
California union membership has dropped by almost 4 percentage points in the past decade, and by about 7 percentage points since 1983...
Largely due to the strong presence of public sector unions, California remains among the 10 states with the highest proportion of workers who are members of unions.
Sheila O’Malley of Charlestown couldn’t believe it when she opened her paycheck from her seasonal job at UPS. “I was shocked,” she told the I-Team. She worked 41 hours that week, many of them during the overnight, and ended up with just $14.52.Ya think?
Sheila assumed it was a mistake and the money would be refunded. In part, because Sheila, like other thousands of other seasonal part time UPS workers, signed an agreement to pay the $500 Teamsters union initiation fee in $32.00 weekly installments. But UPS told her it wasn’t a mistake. A spokesperson for UPS told the I-Team, “Local 25 reversed this long standing practice by rescinding this policy.”
For the new hires, that meant the balance of the union initiation fees and dues would be deducted in one lump sum. For Sheila, that was $490.00- nearly her entire week’s pay.
“I cried and tried to plead my case with them. But there was no wiggle room. He [union representative] said ‘You’re a part of the union now and you won’t have to worry about that coming out of your check,’” she said...
The I-Team has learned the National Labor Relations Board is now investigating charges of unfair labor practices against the Teamsters Local 25.
By recognizing the inherently political nature of public sector unions—which exist to influence government spending decisions, in addition to lobbying, political advocacy, and electing candidates sympathetic to their interests—the Court in Janus opened the door to First Amendment challenges to other common practices, such as taxpayer subsidies to public employee unions in the form of “release time” provisions...If they're ever given over to anything but anger, the unionistas might, just might, wonder why I want to take away so many of the privileges that unions have enjoyed over the years. They'll accuse us pro-Janus workers of wanting to destroy unions, blah blah blah. I don't want to destroy unions. I believe in unions--just like I believe in voluntary associations of people. What I don't agree with is compulsion, and the unions have been allowed to go so far with compulsion that they deserve to be slapped down, and quite hard, so that they hesitate before going down that road again.
With Abood overruled as a precedent, what’s next? If the compelled payment of agency fees violates the free speech rights of government employees, taxpayer subsidies of public sector unions should likewise be unconstitutional. In Janus, the Court compared public sector unions to a political party, and indicated that the First Amendment would not permit a state law requiring all residents to sign a document expressing support for a political party’s platform. Compelled financial support is equally problematic, the Court held in Janus...
Assuming that public employee unions are inherently political, that collective bargaining in the public sector entails political speech, and that compelled financial support of political speech implicates the First Amendment, the reasoning of Janus logically extends to direct payments of taxpayer funds to subsidize the operations of public sector unions. One of the biggest subsidies is the widespread but little-known practice of government employers paying the salary and benefits of union officials even though they exclusively perform union duties. This practice, variously called “release time,” “official time,” or “association business leave,” is common at all levels of government—federal, state, and local—and is often sought by public-sector unions in collective-bargaining agreements.
This practice, sometimes described as “union time, taxpayer dime,” allows government employees who are also full-time union officials to collect their full salary without rendering any services on behalf of the public; to the contrary, union officials actively work against the interests of the taxpayers through labor negotiations, grievance adjustment, lobbying, and political advocacy. But for the hidden “release time” subsidy, unions would have to compensate their officers using union dues. Instead, taxpayers are forced to fund the unions’ inherently-political operations.
A state fair police officer is suing his union because it won’t let him quit paying dues, challenging a common provision in California public employee contracts that forbids workers from leaving labor organizations while contracts are in effect...Maybe, just maybe, if unions had something valuable to offer, they wouldn't need to force people to be members.
Cooley’s case, similar to the other lawsuits, contends that the California State Law Enforcement Association is violating the principles of the new Supreme Court decision by rejecting his request to quit the union.
California public employee unions can celebrate a little good news in the months since the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a ruling that stripped them of millions of dollars in revenue and threatened their influence in the state:Well, let's be honest. The unions and their allies in the legislature passed laws giving unions unfettered access to new employees, and they don't let employees know the other side. That's not "show(ing) members the value of their union" as much as it is "not letting new employees know they have a choice", but whatever. At least all those union members are volunteers, and the money isn't extorted from them under threat of being fired.
So far, workers are not leaving their unions in high numbers. In fact, some labor organizations are gaining members.
Payroll data from the State Controller’s Office show that the unions representing California state employees have collectively gained members since the Supreme Court in June issued a decision that banned public sector unions from collecting fees from workers who don’t choose to join them.
The 5-4 decision in Janus vs. AFSCME ended a 41-year precedent that had permitted labor organizations to charge so-called “fair share” fees to workers who were covered by their contracts but did not sign up for them. Losing those fees dealt an immediate financial hit to unions and raised the possibility that more workers would opt out of labor organizations.
Instead, state worker unions notched a slight uptick in membership since the ruling, gaining about 300 workers among the 185,000 rank-and-file employees in state government. There are 131,410 dues-paying union members in California state government today, up from 131,102 in June. The numbers do not include university, school or local government employees.
“We had a concerted campaign across the labor movement to really show members the value of their union, and I think we’re seeing the value of that campaign now,” said Steve Smith, spokesman for the California Labor Federation. “Members aren’t dropping in big numbers as predicted. In fact, were’ seeing more enthusiasm than ever.”
