emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
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.
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.