red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
Now, if only this law would apply to all union members who do not want their money being spent on candidates they do not support
States can put rules on use of union fees
By Amy Fagan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
June 15, 2007
The Supreme Court yesterday ruled unanimously that states may require public-sector labor unions to get permission from workers before using their union fees for political activities.
The 9-0 decision applies to government workers who have chosen not to be members of the union. About 21 states, including Washington, allow unions and government employers to enter into "agency-shop" agreements under which the union can collect fees from the nonmember workers whom it represents in labor negotiations.
At the time the case was brought, however, Washington also required the union to get explicit prior consent from those nonmembers before using their fees for lobbying or other political purposes. The Washington Supreme Court ruled that this requirement violated the First Amendment and infringed on the union's "expressive associational rights," but the Supreme Court disagreed.
"The notion that this modest limitation upon an extraordinary benefit violates the First Amendment is, to say the least, counterintuitive," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the court. Because it even would be constitutional for Washington state "to eliminate agency fees entirely," this "far less-restrictive limitation" is acceptable, he wrote.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070615-121738-8300r.htm
States can put rules on use of union fees
By Amy Fagan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
June 15, 2007
The Supreme Court yesterday ruled unanimously that states may require public-sector labor unions to get permission from workers before using their union fees for political activities.
The 9-0 decision applies to government workers who have chosen not to be members of the union. About 21 states, including Washington, allow unions and government employers to enter into "agency-shop" agreements under which the union can collect fees from the nonmember workers whom it represents in labor negotiations.
At the time the case was brought, however, Washington also required the union to get explicit prior consent from those nonmembers before using their fees for lobbying or other political purposes. The Washington Supreme Court ruled that this requirement violated the First Amendment and infringed on the union's "expressive associational rights," but the Supreme Court disagreed.
"The notion that this modest limitation upon an extraordinary benefit violates the First Amendment is, to say the least, counterintuitive," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the court. Because it even would be constitutional for Washington state "to eliminate agency fees entirely," this "far less-restrictive limitation" is acceptable, he wrote.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070615-121738-8300r.htm
