CA Teacher sues Union: Fees violate First Amendment

[emilynghiem]

FINALLY: Someone standing up to something similar I'd been arguing about concerning govt and parties pushing their beliefs on taxpayers to pay for, regardless if they violate the beliefs of dissenting citizens.

Here, the lawsuit is literally about suing the teacher's union for fees for political advocacy that doesn't represent the membership. They have no control over this, but are forced to pay for it, even if the members don't share those beliefs.

In concept, this is similar to my arguments against political parties monopolizing and dictating beliefs mandated through govt that become required for all citizens to fund with taxes. What happened to "no taxation without representation?"

==============

Why one California teacher took her union to the Supreme Court

Rebecca Friedrichs is tired of subsidizing someone else’s political, social, and professional agenda. She objects to money being automatically taken out of her paycheck to advance causes and policies that she believes are wrong-headed or even immoral.
But because Ms. Friedrichs is a public school teacher in California she is required as a condition of employment to pay the teacher’s union $650 a year toward the union’s collective bargaining efforts.

Importantly, she is allowed to opt-out of contributing an additional $350 to fund the union’s political advocacy. But Friedrichs and her lawyers say that limited opt-out is not enough.

======

Why one California teacher took her union to the Supreme Court
In a potential watershed labor case, the Supreme Court is poised to weigh if mandatory ‘fair share’ union fees violate the First Amendment. The teacher at the center of the case speaks out.

=================================

I hope this teacher wins or gets enough publicity and support, that similar arguments can be made for funding ACA mandates against the beliefs of dissenting citizens, etc.

 

[Timmy]

But they have a political opt out in the Union .

 

[emilynghiem]

But they have a political opt out in the Union .

So when do we get to politically "opt out" of ACA mandates if that conflicts or violates our political beliefs.
See where this is going?

 

[Timmy]

But they have a political opt out in the Union .

So when do we get to politically "opt out" of ACA mandates if that conflicts or violates our political beliefs.
See where this is going?

You don't have to buy insurance . You can take the tax hit .

 

[OKTexas]

But they have a political opt out in the Union .

That's not the teachers contention, she is saying, as a tax payer they are not conducting collective bargaining in a manner that represents her interest and requiring her to pay for it. She has already opted out of the political advocacy.

 

[OKTexas]

But they have a political opt out in the Union .

So when do we get to politically "opt out" of ACA mandates if that conflicts or violates our political beliefs.
See where this is going?

You don't have to buy insurance . You can take the tax hit .

You mean the unconstitutional direct tax instituted by SCOTUS? The law said it was a penalty, SCOTUS declared it unconstitutional.

 

[emilynghiem]

But they have a political opt out in the Union .

So when do we get to politically "opt out" of ACA mandates if that conflicts or violates our political beliefs.
See where this is going?

You don't have to buy insurance . You can take the tax hit .

So that's still a penalty Timmy. it's not FREE choice but costs a % of your income/wages:
1, 2 3% and rising each year until and unless this is stopped.

Timmy if we CHOSE to be under ACA mandates, like you would CHOOSE to
pay tithes to a Catholic church or pay to support a Muslim Mosque, then that's VOLUNTARY.

I never agreed to be under ACA mandates and have argued they are unconstitutional at the start.
but these were passed by Congress (split by PARTY vote), signed by the President, and changed interpretation in order to pass by the Supreme Court by only 5-4. I'm in the half that opposed,
the half of Congress voting NO the half of the SC that OPPOSED.

This isn't free choice. I had no say in the matter. If I did I would declare the mandates VOLUNTARY to follow, and only required for people using benefits under that system. I believe in a different one.

This is like if Muslims and Hindus voted on a bill and it was split 49-51 or 5 to 4.
Or Protestants and Catholics, in favor of one and in VIOLATION of the half of the other CREED.

That's discrimination, and BELIEFS are NOT supposed to be mandated by federal govt,
much less forced to be paid for by taxes, much less forced on citizens under PENALTY of law.

If we could CHOOSE to be out from under this, FINE, I AGREE. So let's make the mandates OPTIONAL, just like you can CHOOSE to be under Muslim Shariah practices, or CHOOSE to be under Buddhist precepts. But not FINE anyone through taxes for these choices of BELIEF.

The right to health care through govt is a BELIEF. The right to free market health care is a BELIEF or creed. Same with prochoice and prolife.

Prochoice should allow people equal right and freedom to fund prolife activities without penalizing these.
(hence the opposing to forced funding of contested birth control and planned parenthood against BELIEFS of citizens).

Why can't free market choices allow people to fund collective health care without penalty or coercion?
Why can't we separate these by PARTY so people can fund the Beliefs and Creeds of our free choice?
Similar to religious organizations. Why aren't political beliefs protected from infringing or imposing on others?

 

[eddiew]

FINALLY: Someone standing up to something similar I'd been arguing about concerning govt and parties pushing their beliefs on taxpayers to pay for, regardless if they violate the beliefs of dissenting citizens.

Here, the lawsuit is literally about suing the teacher's union for fees for political advocacy that doesn't represent the membership. They have no control over this, but are forced to pay for it, even if the members don't share those beliefs.

In concept, this is similar to my arguments against political parties monopolizing and dictating beliefs mandated through govt that become required for all citizens to fund with taxes. What happened to "no taxation without representation?"

==============

Why one California teacher took her union to the Supreme Court

Rebecca Friedrichs is tired of subsidizing someone else’s political, social, and professional agenda. She objects to money being automatically taken out of her paycheck to advance causes and policies that she believes are wrong-headed or even immoral.
But because Ms. Friedrichs is a public school teacher in California she is required as a condition of employment to pay the teacher’s union $650 a year toward the union’s collective bargaining efforts.

Importantly, she is allowed to opt-out of contributing an additional $350 to fund the union’s political advocacy. But Friedrichs and her lawyers say that limited opt-out is not enough.

======

Why one California teacher took her union to the Supreme Court
In a potential watershed labor case, the Supreme Court is poised to weigh if mandatory ‘fair share’ union fees violate the First Amendment. The teacher at the center of the case speaks out.

=================================

I hope this teacher wins or gets enough publicity and support, that similar arguments can be made for funding ACA mandates against the beliefs of dissenting citizens, etc.

 

[eddiew]

Yes I hope she wins too Then let her ask her bosses for raises vacation time sick days etc etc

 

[emilynghiem]

Yes I hope she wins too Then let her ask her bosses for raises vacation time sick days etc etc

No eddiew I would teach the members to mediate their own conflicts. That's true education and empowerment. Paying people to make decisions for you only goes so far. I would recommend hiring mediators, facilitators and writers/editors to help document terms and contracts people agree to, and their interests and solutions that represent them and they agree to fund. But true mediation reflects the people affected. Consensus isn't dictated from the top down -- forming consensus on policy that reflects "consent of the governed" starts at the bottom and trickles up to the top. This teacher can start this process, of demanding representation or refusing to fund oppressive bureaucracies. The more people jump on this bandwagon, we can roll with it.

I know I'd like to contact her, and find out how to set up collective access to mediation directly.

 

[Timmy]

How's it unconstitutional?

Here's the problem. We have a safety net that covers everyone . Why let freeloaders opt out.

Unless you are cool wh letting people die in the streets?

 

[Papageorgio]

But they have a political opt out in the Union .

So when do we get to politically "opt out" of ACA mandates if that conflicts or violates our political beliefs.
See where this is going?

You don't have to buy insurance . You can take the tax hit .

Why do we get taxed for opting out of insurance?

 

[emilynghiem]

How's it unconstitutional?

Here's the problem. We have a safety net that covers everyone . Why let freeloaders opt out.

Unless you are cool wh letting people die in the streets?

Dear Timmy people should keep the same free choice we have now to set up charity programs that don't rely on govt. In fact, since these govt regulations do not cover all people, all costs, all programs needed then clearly the charity programs and business investment in building medical programs and facilities are still needed ANYWAY. So WHY penalize investing in these other avenues for providing health care? Why mandate that money "has to go to insurance as the ONLY option" and take funds away that could be directly invested in developing sustainable health programs in each district. Why not REWARD more health care investment instead of penalizing citizens if we don't fund this system half the nation disagrees with (ore more -- last I checked, the Universal Care advocates oppose the ACA mandates that are funding corporate insurance as an unnecessary middle man for profit and political favors).

If you were so worried about "freeloaders opting out" why not take a look at state prisons.
How many people CONVICTED of crimes are freeloading off taxpayers at a cost
twice as high per year per person as sending two students to COLLEGE to get a degree.

How much health care could we pay for if we went after people who COMMITTED CRIMES
at taxpayer expense?

Why not go after people who can be PROVEN to already have cost taxpayers money.
Instead of punishing law abiding citizens "in advance" by depriving liberty and taking income from labor? Before any cost has been incurred, much less any crime committed?

If people argue that prison inmates can't be forced into labor to pay their costs, when they committed crimes and were CONVICTED after DUE PROCESS,
why are you arguing that law abiding citizens can be forced to pay with our labor when we committed NO crime and did NOT go through "due process" before depriving us of liberty?

It is a crime to work and make money? Is that what you are penalizing to pay for health care?
Why not go after what prisons cost to taxpayers, and use THAT to pay for health care?

Who deserves to lose liberty -- the convicted criminal who has cost thousands to taxpayers?
Or the hardworking citizen paying the bill for the crimes and abuses of others?

 

[emilynghiem]

How's it unconstitutional?

Here's the problem. We have a safety net that covers everyone . Why let freeloaders opt out.

Unless you are cool wh letting people die in the streets?

Dear Carla_Danger and Timmy the "safety net" does not cover everyone.
Nor all services or costs.

The default providers are still the people. We will still need charity programs, nonprofits,
businesses, schools etc. developed in the FREE MARKET to provide health care services.

So why penalize people for wanting to invest in these other services that are still needed for health care?
Why make insurance the only option (or Christian health shares).
This isn't covering the services and costs needed.

Even Obama's cousin by marriage, radiologist Dr. Milton Wolf pointed out that creating millions more clients on insurance does not create any of the service provisions needed to meet this demand.

So where is that going to come from? The FREE MARKET. Why penalize free choice when that's where the work and resources are going to come from to create sustainable health care, not corporate insurance. (except for insurance companies that are investing in developing their own hospitals. if this is done sustainably for nonprofit to support medical education and services, the resources can go into health care for more people. we certainly don't cover everyone yet.)

 

[emilynghiem]

But they have a political opt out in the Union .

So when do we get to politically "opt out" of ACA mandates if that conflicts or violates our political beliefs.
See where this is going?

You don't have to buy insurance . You can take the tax hit .

You mean the unconstitutional direct tax instituted by SCOTUS? The law said it was a penalty, SCOTUS declared it unconstitutional.

Dear OKTexas I WISH Justice Roberts and the Court had been that clear. Yes, the commerce clause argument was struck down. But even though the bill was not passed as a tax, and argued before Congress it was NOT a tax, the Courts somehow changed the interpretation to be a tax, that yes the federal govt did have Constitutional authority to tax. And somehow the mandates place conditions on tax exemptions.

And that's the controversy. This ACA did NOT pass both Congress and Courts as a tax.
It passed through Congress as "not a tax" which would have been stopped at the Courts
that DID strike down the commerce clause argument as expected.

But the Courts passed it through "as a tax" which would NOT have passed through Congress!
Had Congress voted on the bill as interpreted by the SCOTUS, it would NOT pass.

So it did not really get checked and balanced. There were two different versions of this bill.
THERE WAS NOT ONE VERSION THAT PASSED BOTH CONGRESS AND COURTS.

One that passed through Congress by nearly 50/50 split vote that this was NOT a tax but a stretch of general welfare and commerce clause as a "revised public health bill."

And One that passed through SCOTUS as a tax bill.

I hope the next court that hears the argument about tax revenue bills needing to originate in the House strikes this down. If it is a health bill, then it cannot be justified as a tax bill. If it is a tax bill, then it should have clearly started, stayed and been stated that way or it is misrepresenting the purpose of the bill.

If it's going to be both, then make it optional to follow.

Like the Second Amendment, if you want to allow both sides to argue that "people" means regulated militia like govt, or "people" means citizens who don't have to be members of formal militia or govt, then let all people CHOOSE their own way to interpret it, and not require one and ban the other. Then it's okay for the same law to mean different things to different people if they are both allowed their own ways voluntarily, without imposing on others who believe otherwise.

But it would have been dishonest to run the Second Amendment through Congress, getting the approval because "people means state militia and does not mean independent citizens" THEN turning around and telling Courts that no, the people means citizens outside of govt and doesn't mean formal membership, so it passes the Courts.

That's not even the same bill, but voting on two different ones.

 

[OKTexas]

But they have a political opt out in the Union .

So when do we get to politically "opt out" of ACA mandates if that conflicts or violates our political beliefs.
See where this is going?

You don't have to buy insurance . You can take the tax hit .

You mean the unconstitutional direct tax instituted by SCOTUS? The law said it was a penalty, SCOTUS declared it unconstitutional.

Dear OKTexas I WISH Justice Roberts and the Court had been that clear. Yes, the commerce clause argument was struck down. But even though the bill was not passed as a tax, and argued before Congress it was NOT a tax, the Courts somehow changed the interpretation to be a tax, that yes the federal govt did have Constitutional authority to tax. And somehow the mandates place conditions on tax exemptions.

And that's the controversy. This ACA did NOT pass both Congress and Courts as a tax.
It passed through Congress as "not a tax" which would have been stopped at the Courts
that DID strike down the commerce clause argument as expected.

But the Courts passed it through "as a tax" which would NOT have passed through Congress!
Had Congress voted on the bill as interpreted by the SCOTUS, it would NOT pass.

So it did not really get checked and balanced. There were two different versions of this bill.
THERE WAS NOT ONE VERSION THAT PASSED BOTH CONGRESS AND COURTS.

One that passed through Congress by nearly 50/50 split vote that this was NOT a tax but a stretch of general welfare and commerce clause as a "revised public health bill."

And One that passed through SCOTUS as a tax bill.

I hope the next court that hears the argument about tax revenue bills needing to originate in the House strikes this down. If it is a health bill, then it cannot be justified as a tax bill. If it is a tax bill, then it should have clearly started, stayed and been stated that way or it is misrepresenting the purpose of the bill.

If it's going to be both, then make it optional to follow.

Like the Second Amendment, if you want to allow both sides to argue that "people" means regulated militia like govt, or "people" means citizens who don't have to be members of formal militia or govt, then let all people CHOOSE their own way to interpret it, and not require one and ban the other. Then it's okay for the same law to mean different things to different people if they are both allowed their own ways voluntarily, without imposing on others who believe otherwise.

But it would have been dishonest to run the Second Amendment through Congress, getting the approval because "people means state militia and does not mean independent citizens" THEN turning around and telling Courts that no, the people means citizens outside of govt and doesn't mean formal membership, so it passes the Courts.

That's not even the same bill, but voting on two different ones.

Don't mean to be critical but you need to condense you ideas into a more concise format.

First there were more than 20 revenue raising provisions in the ACA, all were required constitutionally to originate in the house. The penalty that SCOTUS struck down was only one of them. Then Roberts renamed the penalty to a tax which the court has no authority to rewrite legislation. But that aside, the tax Roberts invented was also unconstitutional because it violated the constitutional prohibition on direct taxes. It can not be consider an income tax even though income is used as a multiplier because it is assessed after the requirements allowed in the 16th Amendment have been met.

I'm only going to address one point you made on the 2nd Amendment. There is no place in the Constitution where the State and the people are used synonymously, they are separate and distinct terms. The first and second phrases in the 2nd Amendment are separated by a comma, meaning either can stand alone, one is not dependent on the other and that's the way the SCOTUS ruled. The right to keep and bear arms is reserved expressly to the people in the 2nd and leaves no room for any other interpretations.

 

[emilynghiem]

How's it unconstitutional?

Here's the problem. We have a safety net that covers everyone . Why let freeloaders opt out.

Unless you are cool wh letting people die in the streets?

RE "How it is unconstitutional"
Timmy

A. the ACA bill passed through Congress as a revised health bill and NOT a tax or it would have failed
Then it passed through the Supreme Court as a TAX and not authorized under either the commerce clause/general welfare argument because the commerce clause argument was struck down.

So this never passed by both Congress and Courts.

B. The "right to health care" is a BELIEF. Similar to "right to life" any legislation that is biased by BELIEF (endorsing or establishing one side while denying penalizing or discriminating against other CREEDS)
is violating the First Amendment (against establishing religion or faith-based laws) the Fourteenth Amendment on equal protections of the law, and Civil Rights principles against discrimination by CREED.

C. the mandates prescribe religious conditions on tax exemptions, thus favoring citizens based on their membership in religious organizations that qualify and meet federal requirements. This also constitutes federal regulation on the basis of religion.

D. For Constitutional principles and beliefs
1. either a Constitutional Amendment is required before granting Federal Govt authority to regulate and manage health care as a requirement since this is expanding powers of federal govt outside what is expressly authorized in the Constitution

2. or people BELIEVE two different schools of thoughts, where both BELIEFS are equal
[a]. the belief that as long as it is not expressly banned or prohibited, then laws can be passed authorizing federal govt to expand its programs (the Conservative Constitutionalists will say that this IS prohibited by the First or Tenth Amendments, but the other school of thought disagrees and DOESN'T believe that)
[b ]. the belief that unless the Constitution Specifically grants to federal govt certain authority or power, then this isn't automatic; but that power (such as over health care decisions) is reserved to the People or the States UNLESS an amendment is passed first to CHANGE the Constitution to grant that power BEFORE passing such a bill invoking that authority. This takes two steps, and cannot be done by just passing one bill creating that power.

So either 1 if you believe the Constitution as written already limits federal authority,
then the ACA mandates and exchanges changed that UNCONSTITUTIONALLY without a proper Amendment and process (see above about changing the bill to pass Congress and Courts as two different policies, the first time as a health bill that isn't a tax bill or it would fail, and the second as a tax bill so it passed). so this is unconstitutional "directly by the Constitution" if you follow argument 1.

Or if you even if you don't agree with argument 1,
then argument 2 is subjective to two schools of thought that are equal as political beliefs
[b ]. is the belief in limited govt, that the default power resides with the people unless specifically and democratically authorized to the federal govt following Constitutional processes
[a]. is the belief that govt is only determined by what is voted on, and is not subject to the limits in [b ].

Half the people belief "health care is right" they have the right to push through govt using argument [a].
Half the people [b group] believe in "limited govt and free market health care" and demand no taxation without representation instead of pushing the political agenda as a "political belief" through govt by the [a] group.

So this is UNCONSTITUTIONAL either way
1. either literally by the law if you interpret the Constitution as requiring further steps that were skipped. Most Constitutionalists will put this interpretation above others.
2. or indirectly, by counting both the interpretations equally, then neither can be imposed and the ACA mandates are still UNCONSTITUTIONAL by discrimination by CREED: rewarding citizens of one belief for complying with a biased policy and penalizing citizens of the other creed that is violated by it.

The only way this ACA mandate and exchange can be considered 100% Constitutional is by IMPOSING the interpretation in [a], even though this violates the beliefs in group [b ].

However the opposite is not true. Respecting the Free Market beliefs, and the belief in passing a Constitutional Amendment first, would STILL ALLOW FREE CHOICE FOR the people in group [a] to practice their beliefs in right to health care by allowing them to set this up on their own and not require it for others who don't believe in it. There is nothing illegal about setting up the whole exchange program and forced funding through a large scale organization supported by members who BELIEVE in funding such a program.

However, forcing this on the entire nation, abusing mandatory taxation, IS penalizing other citizens of other creeds and NOT GIVING EQUAL CHOICE to fund their own systems. It is requiring ACA for all and "DEPRIVING liberty without due process of law" (see again, the requirement of a Constitutional Amendment BEFORE giving up liberty to federal govt).

Timmy this is like what if the prochoice and prolife groups both had health care programs:

If the prolife people won the vote, and passed the courts, then all taxpayers would be forced either to buy PROLIFE insurance or participate in Christian approved programs (such as spiritual healing, anti-drugs, abstinence outside of marriage, etc.) where ALL exemptions have to meet Christian prolife regulations, or else PAY A TAX FINE THAT GOES INTO THE CHRISTIAN PROLIFE PROGRAM.

Instead of allowing prochoice believers to fund their own prochoice health care, they are forced to fund prolife or pay a penalty that goes into prolife. That's clearly DISCRIMINATION BY CREED.

With ACA, instead of letting Free Market believers have equal choice of health care programs to fund, the ACA mandates require either buy insurance approved by ACA, be a paid member of a religious organization approved by ACA, or buy approved programs governed by the ACA under exchanges, or pay a fine that goes into federal govt under the ACA. There is no free choice, but it is all regulated under this program that opponents do not believe in and which violates our free market and Constitutional beliefs in no taxation without representation, and due process before being deprived of liberty.

So anyone like me who believes it is NOT the design, role or authority of federal govt to manage "all branches of health care" find this whole bill UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It is like forcing prochoice people to fund prolife programs or else pay fines that support prolife Christian, even if you don't believe in Christian programs, are opposed to them, and/or believe in funding something else. Sorry you get fined! The mandates require you to fund them, like funding a Muslim program you don't believe in where Muslims dictate the regulations of what is exempted or not.

For some reason the people in group [a ] do not recognize the Constitutionalists in group [b ] as a valid belief. So they feel as long as they vote and follow the procedures it is okay to violate these beliefs that don't count.

Until the public recognizes these political beliefs as equal, it is discrimination and the govt officials are guilty of abusing govt to favor people of one creed and PENALIZE people of the other creed.

The party members and leaders like the Democrats ABUSING the media and party system to oppress the equal beliefs and rights of other citizens becomes the equivalent of "CONSPIRING TO VIOLATE EQUAL CIVIL RIGHTS"

I recognize this is going on. The Democrats will strike down "right to life" beliefs from biasing laws through govt. They will discriminate against Christian right to life as a BELIEF, but then allow a double standard and abuse govt to push "right to health care" which is equally a political belief.

So this is DISCRIMINATION BY CREED in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendment,
if not the Tenth and the Civil Rights standards against discrimination by public institutions.

 

[BULLDOG]

Yes I hope she wins too Then let her ask her bosses for raises vacation time sick days etc etc

She will get the benefit of union negotiations (better salary, working conditions) but she doesn't want to pay her share of the costs of those negotiations. Typical freeloading right winger.

 

[emilynghiem]

Yes I hope she wins too Then let her ask her bosses for raises vacation time sick days etc etc

She will get the benefit of union negotiations (better salary, working conditions) but she doesn't want to pay her share of the costs of those negotiations. Typical freeloading right winger.

Dear BULLDOG Are you saying that ALL workers who receive benefits of sick and vacation days off are "freeloading" off the unions, lobbying and collective bargaining of socialist and labor rights activists?

I've heard this argument before
that we "used to need unions" to fight for better working conditions, wages, benefits, etc.
but once we got our employee rights "we don't need them anymore" (well, at least until the federal regulations get eroded by corporate interests if that political lobbying goes away)

This is similar to arguments
that we don't need affirmative action any more:
it was temporary during the transition culturally to get past segregation and exclusion of Blacks
(while activists who disagree continue to push and complain of racial biases and discrimination)
but now it's "no longer necessary" or causes more problems than it solves

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yes I hope she wins too Then let her ask her bosses for raises vacation time sick days etc etc

Funny I've managed to get raises, vacation and sick time without being in a union

Besides teachers get shit loads of vacation already even without union bargaining every school break every holiday and ALL fucking summer