Dispute over union fees could return to Supreme Court

[Omaha Steve]

Source: U T San Diego

By SAM HANANEL

WASHINGTON (AP) — Powerful public-sector unions are facing another high-profile legal challenge that they say could wipe away millions from their bank accounts and make it tougher for them to survive.

A group of California schoolteachers, backed by a conservative group, has asked the Supreme Court to rule that unions representing government workers can't collect fees from those who choose not to join.

Half the states currently require state workers represented by a union to pay "fair share" fees that cover bargaining costs, even if they are not members. The justices could decide as early as next week whether to take up the case.

Union opponents say it violates First Amendment rights to require nonmembers to pay fees that may go to causes they don't support. They could find a sympathetic ear at the high court, where the justices last year indicated they may be willing to reconsider a 38-year-old precedent that allows unions to collect the fees.

FULL 2 page story at link.



FILE - In this Feb. 22, 2011, file photo, Karen Wallace, right, and Meryleigh Brainerd, left, both teachers in Calaveras County, join in a candlelight vigil in front of the state Capitol to express sympathy with union members in Wisconsin in Sacramento, Calif. Powerful public-sector unions are facing another high-profile legal challenge that they say could wipe away millions from their bank accounts and make it tougher for them to survive. A group of California schoolteachers, backed by a conservative group, has asked the Supreme Court to rule that unions representing government workers can't collect fees from those who choose not to join. The case comes as officials in Wisconsin and other states dealing with budged deficits have worked to reduce bargaining rights for public employees. (AP Photo/Robert Durell, File) The Associated Press

Read more: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/jun/24/dispute-over-union-fees-could-return-to-supreme/

---

They get higher pay and benefits, but don't want to pay for them. IF the union goes under for lack of funds then they will be sorry. This is what right to work does across the USA.

[Romeo.lima333]

1. they are the real moochers and takers

[groundloop]

2. "it violates First Amendment rights" ?????

We're supposed to believe that everything under the sun which right wingers don't like violates their first amendment rights. How the hell can a law which expects people to pay a portion of the cost of running a union which bargains on their behalf be construed as somehow limiting their ability to express their opinion in public?

[sulphurdunn]

3. The Center for Individual Rights,

that has these dancing pet teachers on it's leash, has quite a rightwing track record and some big billionaire sugar daddies bankrolling it .

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Center_for_Individual_Rights

[Starry Messenger]

4. K&R

I doubt this post will get the 150 recs it deserves, unfortunately. This is issue is vital to the future of left-wing politics.

[ibewlu606]

5. Rec

If they win their case, I would like to seem them NOT be covered by the contract. Meaning they have to negotiate their own pay and benefits, and represent themselves in any disputes. Fair is fair, right?

[turbinetree]

6. Here's .......................

something for them to chew on-----------------if this "fast track" trade deal comes to complete fruition-------------there job can be outsourced to contractors, lots of them, they are what is empathically called "AT WILL EMPLOYEES" because they have no union bargaining rights ---------------then what are they going to do-------------whine and scream that it was the 50+1 majority faults which voted in the Union in the first place------------they really are little fascists if you really think about-----------all they are, are free loaders, and they think if they don't pay a due to have representation its more money in there pocket.
Hell the oligarchies and the corporations pay a fee to there business groups and the U.S Chamber of Commerence00000this right to work less organization and the National Right to Work for Less organization
If these anti-union "teachers are so adamant in there right to work less concept--------they should have to pay for this challenge out of there own pocket--instead of a from a outside group

[Starry Messenger]

7. Kick.

Amazing what gets on the front page around here via the so-called leftists around here.

If CA teachers unions, who have the highest progressive voting rate in the U.S. lose their ability to organize, you can kiss economic social reform goodbye for the next generation. This case has nationwide implications.

[drm604]

8. K&R

[CANDO]

9. Employees of profitable corporations need to file suit

When the corporation makes political contributions with profits produced by me, and I don't get a say so, that violates my 1st A rights as well. It is the mirror image of what they are saying about unions giving to political causes that they don't like. That is their bitch more than anything. It is a purely political maneuver. I know this because my right wing brother has told me that is the basis for them taking this fight against unions. They don't want their money going against their own political views. So I simply say the same MFing thing goes on with corporations taking the profits that I helped produce and giving it to political entities with which I don't agree with. Where are my 1st A rights in this regard?