Thu, Jun 21, 2012

By Andrew Riggio

COMMENTARY | Dianne Knox, a state employee in California, objected to paying her part of an assessment by the SEIU, the labor union representing many of her co-workers. She filed suit and started a legal battle than went all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled in her favor on Thursday.

Knox's actions were selfish. The fee Knox objected to is called a "fair share fee." It's a fee paid by non-union employees in union shops to support the union. Right-wing politicians, pundits, big businesses and other union-busters object to these fees because they're charged to non-members. There's just one flaw with their objection, though, and it's a whopper.

The non-members, like Dianne Knox, are still getting all the benefits of the union's collective bargaining efforts even though they are not paying union dues. That's right: They're coasting along and trying to get a free ride on the union-advantage train.

Knox is complaining about paying a modest amount of money, less than what union members pay, to support getting all the pay increases, protections, and benefits granted to union members. Her objection marks her as a freeloading whiner.

If she's determined to gripe over small fees here's what Knox should do:

Find out what someone in her position had for pay and benefits before the SEIU got involved. Give up the extra money and benefits the union won for employees. Sign away any job protection she has. Try to negotiate a better deal without union support.

Until people like Knox are ready to fight their own battles while living without health care and on reduced salary they should write the checks to the SEIU with smiles on their faces. Doing otherwise is still freeloading even if the Supreme Court ruled in their favor.

June 22, 2012

Editorial:
Workers won important free-speech rights in a decision Thursday from the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision also has implications for the Stop Special Interest Money Now initiative that California voters will decide in the November election.

The case, Knox vs. SEIU Local 1000, involved Dianne Knox, a California government employee who did not belong to Local 1000, the Sacramento branch of the Service Employees International Union. Local 1000 members include 95,000 state employees.
In 2005, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger called a special election for November to pass a reform slate of initiatives, including reforms of teacher tenure and union dues strongly opposed by unions. To fight the initiatives, the SEIU imposed a special union dues addition of $6.45 a month not only on members, but on nonmembers, such as Ms. Knox, whom the union represented in collective bargaining.

The reform initiatives all lost, prompting Gov. Schwarzenegger to flip-flop from being a reformer governor to one who supported more regulations, taxes and spending.

Normally, nonmembers of unions are given an opportunity to opt out of paying dues earmarked for political causes, although they still are charged for union collective bargaining costs. In this case, the SEIU gave the nonmembers no notice about, or opportunity to opt out of, the special campaign assessment.
In the 7-2 decision written by Justice Samuel Alito and reversing the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the high court held: "Under the First Amendment, when a union imposes a special assessment or dues increase levied to meet expenses that were not disclosed when the regular assessment was set, it must provide a fresh notice and may not exact any funds from nonmembers without their affirmative consent."

"It's the only fair decision for the employee," Lew Uhler told us; he's the president of the Roseville-based National Tax Limitation Committee. He said it restores the First Amendment right of the employees to decide "whom they support politically for issues and individuals."

Mr. Uhler is a major force behind an initiative on this November's ballot. The Stop Special Interest Money Now Act. It would go further than the Supreme Court mandated in Knox and require that unions for government employees obtain explicit permission from members for withholding dues for political purposes at any time. It also would limit the ability of corporations directly to support political campaigns. Corporations still could contribute to independent campaign-related efforts, as was protected by the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision in 2010.

Thursday's Supreme Court decision "augurs well for the principle that no one should be asked to contribute to something he doesn't support," Mr. Uhler said. "Among other things, the initiative will take the employer out of the role of collector of political monies." For workers belonging to government-employee unions, such as the SEIU or the California Teachers Association, the "employer" effectively is the taxpayer.

The November initiative, he said, "will require voluntarism and annual consent for taking the money from the pockets of employees. That is confirmed by this decision."

On June 5, unions failed to recall Wisconsin's reform Gov. Scott Walker. And they failed to halt public pension reform initiatives in San Diego and San Jose, which voters passed overwhelmingly. Especially because of their continued refusal to advance the reforms of underfunded pensions, the tide has been turning against the once all-powerful public-employee unions.

In the case at hand, the wise words of Thomas Jefferson come to mind: "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical."

Unions should be outlawed.

Obama deathcare next?

SCOTUS ruled that a person who is not a member of a labor union cannot be forced to help pay for the political speech of that labor union.