Teachers vs Union

Listen to the Davenport Arguments!

2007-10-08T09:54:00.000-07:00

The U.S. Supreme Court has released audio files from its 2006-07 term, including our Davenport v. Washington Education Association case.

Go to the EFF blog for the link to the audio file.

This was Attorney General Rob McKenna's first argument before the High Court.

Colbert Congratulates Carpenters For Finally Becoming Management

2007-08-03T15:50:00.000-07:00

A follow-up on the post on the Carpenter’s union below…

Colbert, from Comedy Central, spoofed the contradiction congratulating the Carpenters for reaching the echelons of “management.”

Minimum Wage: Taking from the Poor and Needy to Give to the Greedy

2007-08-01T11:55:00.000-07:00

Some comments from Derek Archer on the federal minimum wage increase...

On Tuesday, July 24th, the first installment of the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 went into effect. This law increased the federal minimum wage from $5.15 to $5.85 an hour and will continue to increase it over the next two years. This may look good at the first glance, but there are many hidden costs found in the minimum wage. Please allow me to explain myself.

A minimum wage law creates an artificial floor for businesses by limiting their resources. When faced with a raised minimum wage, businesses must make a hard choice. They must either raise the prices of their products and services or they must fire some of their employees in order to pay the wages of the rest of their employees.

If businesses, on the one hand, raise prices, people living on fixed incomes will be hurt. These people often depend on a Social Security or disability check every month. If businesses, on the other hand, choose to fire some of their employees instead, inexperienced and handicapped people will suffer most. Many jobs will be lost and some may even be outsourced to cheaper foreign labor.

An estimate made by the National Federation of Independent Businesses argues that 217,000 jobs will be destroyed if the federal minimum wage is increased to $6.65 per hour. The federal minimum wage is scheduled to reach $6.55 per hour next summer and $7.25 per hour the summer after that.

Some of the primary forces behind minimum wage laws are the unions. Unions stand to gain higher wages for their own workers when minimum-wage workers are making more money. In essence, minimum wage laws take economic opportunities away from the poor and needy to subsidize the greedy.

Carpenters' Union Outsources Picket Lines

2007-07-26T16:36:00.000-07:00

In this video, one union boss oversees a picket line of homeless and transients the union hired to do work the union's members won't do themselves. When a reporter tries to ask the picketers questions, they say that they will be fired if they talked to him. The union boss remains tight lipped too.

A few notes to complement this video...

Shopfloor’s Carter Wood did some research on how old this story is and poses the question: “The federal minimum wage went up yesterday. Did the carpenters give their homeless picketers a raise?”

Other mentions:

Miami, Fla., October 2004: "When it comes to picketing, the Carpenters' Union has discovered it's smart to outsource. ...That's part of the strategy behind a flurry of protests outside a few Brickell Avenue towers in recent months. But complaints have filtered to Miami police regarding abusive language and use of the homeless to hold signs. "Maybe some are homeless, but not the majority," Kuzmik said.
Indianapolis, Ind., May 2005: "The labor group hires demonstrators--including many homeless and unemployed people who have little or no connection to the construction trades--to picket various projects, carrying giant fake rats on sticks or even wearing rat costumes."
Columbus, Ohio, August 2006: "Ohio and Vicinity Regional Council of Carpenters is upset that some contractors and property-management companies don't pay carpenters the $22.50-an-hour standard wage and, perhaps, don't pay for health insurance or pensions. So the union is picketing these companies. Well, sort of. The union itself is not doing the protesting. Rather, it has hired more than 160 nonunion people -- the jobless and the homeless -- to do its picketing."
Louisville, January 2005
Denver, January 2006
And as we noted yesterday, Street Sense, the self-help homeless tabloid, reported the story in August 2005.

Bret Jacobson at Laborpains.org also notes another newscase from back in August 2006. (Video here.)

Dem’s Cut Funding to Agency that Holds Unions Accountable

2007-07-20T10:13:00.000-07:00

While Democrats want to increase the Department of Labor’s budget by nearly $1 billion, they are leaving the little agency that oversees union transparency out. Why? Because union bosses are call the shots on Capital Hill and they don't like that little agency.

The agency currently receives $47.7 million and President Bush wanted to increase the budget to $56 million. Instead, Democrats have set funding at $45.7 million.

Example One: Only the agencies unions can use to bully employers, such as those tasked with employer accountability and worker safety, are getting the increased funds. The singular subject on which Dem’s are exercising fiscal restraint is the agency that, from 2001 to 2006, “investigated more than 2,000 criminal cases that secured some 650 indictments of union officials who had engaged in everything from embezzlement to extortionate picketing. The [agency] has also implemented a 2004 rule requiring unions to file expanded disclosure reports, obliging them for the first time to disclose how much dues money they spend on politics and union salaries.”
Example Two: The Hill wrote yesterday, “In an op-ed e-mailed to reporters, Chao criticized Congress for being ‘all for boosting the Securities and Exchange Commission’s [SEC] budget so it can ride herd on businesses.’ In contrast, she said, Congress had singled out the one federal entity charged with protecting union members from corruption for budget cuts.”
Example Three: Democrats are succumbing to pressure to renege on promises to keep the free trade agreements with Panama and Peru alive. Charlie Rangel has been persuaded to visit the two countries and tell them that if they want the agreements to pass (i.e., Democratic support of the agreements.) to make their labor laws more union-friendly.

Predictably, unions take a “Who? Me?” approach, raised eyebrows and all. “The statistics are cooked,” associate general counsel to the AFL-CIO, Deborah Greenfield, said to The Hill. She said DoL double-counts convictions (If one union boss is convicted of 5 different crimes, the agency counts five convictions, not one.).

Greenfield also told The Hill that an AFI-CIO study on union bosses says that less than four-one hundredths (4/100 or .04) of 1 percent of union officials are guilty of crimes against their unions."

Also note: Democrats who voted for the Kline amendment were Reps. Dan Boren (Okla.), Bud Cramer (Ala.), Lincoln Davis (Tenn.), Brad Ellsworth (Ind.), Tim Mahoney (Fla.), Mike McIntyre (N.C.), Harry Mitchell (Ariz.) and Heath Shuler (N.C.). Sixteen Republicans voted against the Kline amendment, including Reps. Mark Kirk (Ill.), Ray LaHood (Ill.) and Christopher Shays (Conn.).

Read the Wall Street Journal editorial here: Congress's Union Dues
Read The Hill’s news report here: Sec. Chao criticizes House for cutting union oversight funds

Keeping the Priorities Straight

2007-07-17T16:58:00.000-07:00

The Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) is a division of the U.S. Department of Labor and stands as a champion of justice. One of its primary roles is to investigate and report the fiscal documents of labor organizations. Perhaps it should come as no great surprise then that this is the only government office from which the Democratic Congress is seeking to cut funds.

Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao wrote an op-ed on this topic. Read it here.

The Office believes that union workers have a right to know how their union dues are spent—especially if such dues are being embezzled. It may be important to some to know that the NEA gave about $65 million to Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow PUSH Coalition and other liberal organizations—organizations that do not relate to education at all.

Furthermore, the OLMS prosecutes embezzlement and corruption within unions. For example, an OLMS investigation of Alan Raines, former Financial Secretary of Steelworkers Local 1358, accused him of embezzling over $274,000 in union funds and of bank fraud. This is one example of many where the OLMS has curbed corruption (click here for criminal prosecutions and here for accounts of civil violations).

Unlike some arguably useless government agencies, the OLMS deserves our support. If funding must be cut from a government agency, Congress should know what cuts to make rather than being blown about by the winds of political expediency. For example, which of the following is more important: the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission or the OLMS? Your Representatives in the U.S. House need to know where you stand on this issue.

Letter-to-the-Editor: Despite spanking, WEA won’t behave

2007-07-16T13:32:00.000-07:00

Mount Vernon teacher Jeff Leer hit the papers again. In a letter-to-the-editor, Mr. Leer describes the WEA's summer vacation to date: a prolonged session behind the woodshed.

Justice Scalia said that the only thing that makes this complicated is the fact that the WEA chooses to commingle funds that doesn’t belong to it. The union tried to claim it was actually the WEA’s money. Laughter broke out in the court. I was there.
The Seattle Times, hardly a part of the right-wing conspiracy the WEA has used as a scapegoat for years, called its practice a money-laundering scheme.

Leer concluded:

When students get into trouble, I respect them more if they own up to their mistakes and take responsibility for their actions. The WEA will yet again face monetary penalties for its law-breaking. Who will pay? Every hardworking teacher, while the union bosses continue to make excuses and collect huge salaries. How sad.

Video: WEA President Charles Hasse Discusses Davenport

2007-07-13T17:03:00.000-07:00

On July 10, David Ammons, the AP's state political writer and has covered the statehouse since 1971, interviewed outgoing Washington Education Association President Charles Hasse and incoming President Mary Lindquist. The video can be viewed HERE at minute 26:55.

Ammons asked Hasse and Lindquist about Davenport at minute 26:55 and evokes a number of interesting comments all by Hasse (Lindquist was silent throughout the discussion of Davenport.).

Ammons opened by lofting a softball at Hasse and Lindquist. He indicated the legislature was responsible for of HB 2079 saying, “realizing that [the U.S. Supreme Court decision] was afoot, [the legislature] passed a law saying, essentially defining the way you do things as fine.”

While the question was not factually accurate—it ran contrary to information published in the Seattle Times, “Teachers union pushes political spending bill”—the question may be understandable if Ammons had to be nice to the WEA’s top officials to get them to talk.

Hasse describes how Davenport was in the works at the time he became WEA president in 2000. The WEA had a “good case” and “bad case” (better known as best case and worst case scenarios.) scenarios laid out but Hasse admitted that the trial court ruling was “worse than anything we had imagined in a worst case scenario because the judge said we had deliberately violated campaign finance law.”

Hasse revealed the WEA’s next steps in Davenport at 30:20:

“The U.S. Supreme Court said ‘no, the state can in fact regulate labor unions in this way. It is a constitutional law.’ But they didn’t say it is a good law, they didn’t say that we had violated it, nor yet did they say that we had deliberately done so, so those issues now go back to the state court.”
Ammons asks at minute 31 what Hasse thinks of EFF.

Hasse begins graciously, but then reverts to old worn out attack on EFF members and donors.

The response is simple: Unlike the WEA, which forces teachers to pay the union to keep their job, EFF accepts only voluntary contributions.

The final point I’ll make here, Ammons asks Hasse whether the WEA is glad, in a way, EFF is out there. Naturally, Hasse replied that he would say he is glad we are out there, but he doesn’t expect EFF to go away and that we have had no impact on the WEA’s membership levels.

Mortgaging the Future to Afford the Present

2007-07-12T17:11:00.000-07:00

The National Education Association has posted a legislative action call, asking its members to support the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill that should come up for a vote in the U.S. House next week. This bill would increase the gargantuan amount of money that the United States spends on public education already.

The Department of Education reports that the United States already spends $62.7 billion dollars per year on education. While this number sounds large, let me give you an example of just how HUGE this number really is. If I gave you all of this $62.7 billion and told you to spend $1,000 a day, it would take you over 171,780 YEARS to spend it all.

Consider also that the federal government only pays for a fraction of the nation’s $500 billion education costs overall, and you may begin to think again before allowing the government to pour more of your money into education spending.

Presidential Candidates Address the National Education Association Representative Assembly

2007-07-11T16:32:00.000-07:00

Hillary Clinton: Better Curriculum Needed--More Field Trips!

Sure, tests do not tell the whole story. Hillary called for more learning and less memorizing and testing in the classroom. This is great, but there still should be some evaluative standard for the children. If “Little Johnny” has gone on thirty field trips during his elementary education years, he is automatically ready for high school, right?

Former South Carolina Senator John Edwards: Empower Teachers! Not Tests!

Edwards joined the brigade of standardized-test-bashers when he gave his speech in front of the NEA convention in Philadelphia. He argued that Americans need to empower teachers to make education a success. Good point, Mr. Edwards, but even empowered teachers need some feedback.

Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd: More Funding—More Ways of Evaluation

Senator Chris Dodd said that he would make it his number one priority fully to fund No Child Left Behind (NCLB) once he became president. He also believes that NCLB should evaluate children on more than one plane—there should be more than just tests. The only problem is that the other evaluation methods he mentioned—drop-out rates, overall improvement rates, and participation in advanced placement courses—are test related evaluations as well. How do we know when kids show marked improvements or succeed in advanced placement courses? It is largely through their test scores.

Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich: Fully-fund Public Education from Pre-K to College

Dennis Kucinich throws the old answer down an ever-gaping drain—schools need full funding to be a success. He proposes total government funding for public education for every child from pre-kindergarten to a two-four year college degree. How much money can we throw at the public school system, Rep. Kucinich, without seeing many returns?

Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico: Improve No Child Left Behind

“When I am elected, the No Child Left Behind program will be improved, or it will be abolished!” said Bill Richardson to the Representative Assembly of the National Education Association. He also called for the abolishment of the AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) reports from the NCLB program, calling for more than one test score assessment. While this sounds reasonable, perhaps the problem goes deeper than test scores.

Illinois Senator Barack Obama: Teach More!

Teachers should be allowed to teach as they need, not teach for a test. The No Child Left Behind Act aims at noble goals, but it is not reaching those goals, argued Obama. More funding and better teachers are the answer. Let the teachers teach!

This is a swell aspiration, Senator Obama, but allowing great teachers to teach well is only half the battle. Students spend about half their day in school and half at home. If parents do not join with teachers to emphasize the importance of a student’s classroom experience, the battle is only half won.

Former Governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee: Prepare for the Next Generation

Mike Huckabee argued before the Representative Assembly of the National Education Association in Philadelphia that teachers should be compensated for the ongoing education they need while performing their teaching duties. There is merit to this argument, but where should the government draw the line? What and how much should the government actually fund with your tax dollars? Just remember that the more money the government spends, the more money it will need to take from you.

Delaware Senator Joe Biden: The Record Goes On

Senator Joe Biden reiterated some of the same statements that had been made by his fellow presidential candidates at the convention. He called for better paid teachers, smaller classrooms, pre-kindergarten education, college possibilities for the qualified, and different testing methods. Joe Biden and the rest of the presidential candidates at the NEA convention sound like a broken track record. They all point out problems with our education system, but where are the substantive plans to address these problems? Since all the candidates seem so similar, how will the NEA know whom to endorse as the next President of the United States?

Analysis:

American lags behind such countries as Japan and Korea in its educational accomplishments. Why is this? Americans have tried to bring better qualified teachers into the classrooms, shrink classroom size, give more money to the schools, change textbooks, create more fieldtrips, build better school buildings, etc., etc. Where are the results? Perhaps the reason that our education system lags behind the education systems of other nations is because the battle to educate our children is only half fought in the classroom. Teachers must have the support and help of parents in order to effectively educate their students. Unless teacher-parent relationships improve, it is likely that Americans will continue to see our education system lag behind those of other nations.

http://www.nea.org/annualmeeting/raaction/07candidates.html

Video: Obama, Huckabee, and Biden Speak to the NEA Convention

2007-07-10T16:30:00.000-07:00

EIA’s Mike Antonucci provides a wrap-up of the NEA Convention’s final day during which Sen. Barack Obama, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, and Sen. Joe Biden spoke.

Obama’s speech included some statements supporting merit pay, but not based solely on test scores. He wants to work with teachers to find a spectrum of ways in which to measure teachers’ success.

Mike Huckabee was greeted with a roar of applause when he opened by equating his appearance at the NEA convention as out of place as Michael Moore going to the National Rifle Association’s convention. I couldn’t tell whether the crowd was cheering Huckabee or just cheered at the mention of Michael Moore. (video at 1:51)

All-in-all, entertaining, but Antonucci adds some good insight into the content of the speeches in his Communiqué for the Week of July 9, 2007.

WEA Comments About the NEA Convention

2007-07-09T14:44:00.000-07:00

Here are some WEA press releases on its activities at the NEA convention in Philadelphia last week. According to the reports, only one WEA member was permitted to speak to delegates from the platform.

Could this cold shoulder be a consequence of the WEA’s loss at the U.S. Supreme Court in Davenport? The NEA has viciously fought against paycheck protection policies in California, Ohio, Colorado, Utah and many other states where it has been introduced. Now, thanks to WEA officials bungling their positions and strategies in Davenport, the NEA must overcome the weight of the High Court, which legitimized the policy, in future campaigns. Any fallout between the affiliates is certain to be kept under wraps, but the WEA’s showing at the convention may be one small window for our observation.

WEA members head to Philly for NEA convention
NEA delegates tackle top issues at annual convention - Nearly 350 WEA members are helping celebrate the National Education Association's 150th anniversary at the annual NEA Representative Assembly, which is being held blocks from Independence Hall in Philadelphia.

Also at the RA, WEA President Charles Hasse was officially replaced by president-elect Mary Lindquist. WEA Vice President Dave Scott was also replaced by Mike Ragan.

Davenport Implications: California

2007-07-06T10:26:00.000-07:00

The Pacific Research Institute, a coalition partner and signatory of an amicus brief, just published this commentary on what Davenport means to Californians titled, "Protecting Paychecks and First Amendment Rights."

California voters have faced paycheck protection initiatives twice in the past decade, Proposition 226 in 1998 and Proposition 75 in 2005.

In 1998, the $6 million campaign in favor of Prop 226 was dwarfed by more than $22 million in the union campaign war chest to defeat the measure.

In 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger backed Prop 75—along with 4 other “reform” measures which included tenure and pension reform—with approximately $32 million, but just as with Prop 226, unions reported outspending the campaign by more than 3-to-1 (not counting undocumented spending). The behind-the-scenes numbers are even more startling. The 500 pound gorilla of California’s political scene, the California Teaches Association, pulled out $100 million to spend against Schwarzenegger’s measures. Their sidekick, the state correctional officer’s union pulled out another huge sum. In total, EFF estimated unions spent more than $200 million (As much as the Democratic party spent trying to put John Kerry in the White House in 2004.) against the Schwarzenegger measures, including Prop 75.

The PRI article explains why unions are so deathly afraid of paycheck protection and concludes with the suggestion that voters “should look beyond expensive advertising campaigns funded by union war chests to the real issue of First Amendment rights.”

Here's How NEA Delegates Voted on the Screwball Measures

2007-07-05T14:08:00.000-07:00

Derek Archer compiled a summary of some of the RA resolutions I talked about earlier. Below are his findings. Also check out the reports by the Education Intelligence Agency on the NEA's convention.

Legislative Amendment 1: Adopted
Crashed Bus Drivers Get the Crack with Drug and Alcohol Testing

It should be no big surprise to you and me that bus drivers should be subject to the same criminal investigations as everyone else. Hooray for the NEA on getting this one right.

Legislative Amendment 5: Adopted
Mandatory Kindergarten for All

For those of us like myself, this legislation may be a blessing. You see, I never received a kindergarten graduation diploma, so for all I know my college studies could be seriously impeded by this small predicament. I feel so left behind . . . this legislation would make sure that all children receive that special diploma.

Legislative Amendment 7: Defeated
African-American Family Tree Research Cut Down

It is true that many people enjoy researching their family tree and ancestors back to the dark ages, but it does not seem necessary for the government to fund such research. While I’m as mongrel an American as there ever was, my past does not dictate my future. In fact, for everyone, the past gives birth to the present, and the choices we make in the present give birth to the future.

Legislative Amendment 10: Defeated
No Bill to Be Added to the Bill of Rights This Time

The NEA rejected the proposition to give every child "the basic right to a high-quality, free, and appropriate public education." The most probable reason for this is that the NEA does not want any of its strings tied by federal judges in case laws.

Legislative Amendment 12: Passed
Evaluative Tests Do Not Accurately Reflect Student Workplace Performance

While it is true that a young adult can be book smart and practically clueless in the actual workplace, it is also true that a young adult can be a star employee in the workplace but a dropout from school. Does this mean that test scores should be completely overlooked in the evaluation process of any student seeking a job? America is your country. You decide.

I2I's Discussion of Davenport Victory to air Friday at 8:30 p.m.

2007-07-05T12:36:00.001-07:00

The Independence Institute (I2I) was a coalition partner with EFF in Davenport. I2I Education Policy Analyst Ben DeGrow and AG Suthers will join I2I president John Caldara to Discuss Supreme Court Victory on Friday's episode of Independent Thinking. The show will dissect the legal victory for the free speech rights of workers.

The episode airs on KBDI Channel 12 in Denver (Channel 32 in Colorado Springs) TOMORROW (Friday) at 8:30 PM, and on Sunday, July 8, at 11:30 AM.

"All 9 members of the U.S. Supreme Court agreed that states may give extra protections to public-sector workers who haven’t joined the union and want to be asked first before the union can spend their mandatory fees on politics. The Court’s decision strengthens the case for an Ask First policy in Colorado that would protect the rights of teachers and all public-sector workers to decide which political candidates and causes they would like to support."

Here are some related I2I links:
- Listen to Ben DeGrow host a podcast on the Supreme Court decision with Mike Reitz, director of labor policy at the Evergreen Freedom Foundation in Olympia, Wash.
- Read the Independence Institute’s press release hailing the Davenport decision victory
- See Colorado teachers explain their views on unions and the issues in the Davenport case in an Evergreen Freedom Foundation video production recorded last December
- Read Ben’s Rocky Mountain News Speakout column on the topic, published last September

Happy Fourth of July

2007-07-03T16:58:00.001-07:00

Click here to view our Independence Day VIDEO

Click here to view our Independence Day Editorial

Screwball Measures NEA Delegates Must Vote On

2007-07-03T15:35:00.000-07:00

A few comments on some issues up for vote at the NEA Convention. All these documents can be found HERE.

Legislative Amendment 1 - Drug Testing Bus Drivers

More than 50 delegates submitted a measure to list the NEA as supporting "Federal legislation mandating a test for drugs and alcohol that is admissible in a criminal prosecution of a driver involved in an accident while transporting students."

If union bosses oppose school districts who try to fire teachers who should be registered sexual offenders for fondling, groping and threatening little girls with pieces of broken glass, I don’t think union bosses will support anything that will aid in the conviction of bus drivers driving under the influence.

Legislative Amendment 5 - Mandatory Kindergarten

This measure would make the NEA an official supporter of mandatory kindergarten. While this is understandable given the union’s dependence on the growth of the teacher workforce for its own growth, the stated rational is somewhat suspect.

Supposedly, mandatory kindergarten is necessary because “Kindergarten provides an essential bridge between prekindergarten and the primary grades.”

Let’s think this through out loud. Kindergarten should be mandatory because it bridges prekindergarten and first grade? We all know first grade is mandatory, but this logic could only be correct if prekindergarten were mandatory too.

Legislative Amendment 7 - Government Funded Family Tree Research

Some delegates want the NEA to support "legislation providing funding of DNA testing for African-Americans so they can trace their ancestry and their country of origin."

I want some input on this. While DNA testing may be important to some individuals, is it a proper role for government to play? What are your thoughts?

The union rational says, “Researching one's family tree is worthwhile and at times medically necessary. Most African-Americans cannot trace their ancestry to their country of origin. DNA testing would allow them to make that identification.”

Legislative Amendment 10 - Adds Tenure and Teacher Salaries to Bill of Rights

The final measure I’ll comment on is just another indication of the union’s arrogance. It is becoming clearer that union officials view this nation’s government and even its founding documents as the embodiment of their job security.

Some union officials want the NEA to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that “guarantees that every child has the basic right to a high-quality, free, and appropriate public education."

This is only one part of the movement by NEA officials to turn the Bill of Rights into their own union organizing and personal job security document. The union’s arguments in Davenport alleged that the First Amendment’s Free Speech guarantee applied to it at the expense of individuals. Now NEA officials reveal that they want to add job security for its 3 million members to the Bill of Rights and guarantee they are paid lavish salaries (“Congress must provide adequate funding”) (of which the NEA gets $245 per person).

NEA Amendment to Increase Forced Contributions to Ballot Fund

2007-07-03T12:23:00.000-07:00

Bylaw Amendment 2-A has been submitted to the RA to increase mandatory contributions to the Ballot Measure/Legislative Crisis and Media Campaign Funds. These funds are not a registered PAC, but are spent similarly.

Currently, every NEA member is forced to give $7 to the fund which is disbursed throughout the country as needed to fund offensive drives (imposing taxes on radioactive waste in Utah to increase education funding and lobbying against school choice legislation), fund defensive efforts to protect union turf (defeating California initiatives to reform tenure laws, onerous pension plans and campaign finance reform), and media drives to influence the publics’ perception of unions.

The amendment would increase dues to $10 a year. While the sum may not seem like much, many teachers do not agree with the way the union spends it. The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Davenport ruled that states can limit the use of these dues to purely non-political issues related to collective bargaining.

Also, because the Ballot Fund is not a PAC, contributions are illegal in some states. To compensate for this problem, the amendment says that the union can change the way it says it accounts for the money.

“Where necessary to avoid legal problems under state law, the Association and a state affiliate may, at the request of the state affiliate, enter into a written agreement providing that the money collected from members of that state affiliate shall not be used to deal with ballot measures, but shall be used only to deal with legislative crises and/or to fund national and state media campaigns. The Executive Committee shall develop guidelines to implement this Bylaw.”

Accordingly, when the Washington state campaign finance agency asked the NEA where the money came from, the union said it came from only in-state teachers. When the Nevada campaign finance agency asked where the money came from, the union said only from out-of-state teachers.

This sounds fishy to me if all the $10 “donations” are dumped into the same pot. How can the union say it is both ways? Does the NEA have a set of books for each state?

Constitutional Amendment to Expand NEA Membership to the Public; Will Increase Political Contributions

2007-07-03T11:16:00.000-07:00

Constitutional Amendment 1 has been submitted to the NEA’s Representative Assembly and would expand NEA membership “to persons interested in advancing the cause of public education, who shall agree to subscribe to the goals and objectives of the Association and to abide by its Constitution and Bylaws.”

This amendment is proof that some NEA officials are not as interested in teachers as they are in expanding their political influence. A startling statement, yes, but bear with me.

Only NEA members can contribute to the NEA’s Political Action Committee. Therefore, if the union wants to expand its grassroots political funding base, it must grow its membership. This predicament forces NEA officials to make a choice:

Stay true to representing teachers by limiting membership to only education employees (this limits the union’s political clout by limiting those who can contribute to the PAC and thus, its political funding.), or
Open membership to the general public (providing they agree with the NEA’s agenda) and rake in hundreds of thousands in dues and political contributions.

I have heard from other sources that some NEA officials have been pushing this amendment hard for the past few years. While these officials obviously believe they can best represent teachers by working by walking the halls of Congress they do not understand, or care about, the true needs of teachers.

Is this the beginning of the end of the National Education Association? Maybe not, so long as the term “Education” in National Education Association can be construed to mean something other than education employees. But the union would certainly be straying from its roots.

NEA Presidential Guide

2007-07-03T10:02:00.000-07:00

The NEA's presidential campaign is in full swing as it parades Democratic nominees across the platform at its convention. As you can see from the grid I've posted below though, the rank and file are in a tough spot. Every Democratic candidate running seems to be in lock-step with the union.

NEA members, along with the entire nation, are waiting with baited breath to see which candidate NEA top bosses endorse. Don't expect the verdict anytime soon though. Last time around, 2004, a major union suffered a major embarrassment when it endorsed Wesley Clark, who didn't survive the primary. As you can imagine, John Kerry didn't take kindly to the union, severely limiting its sphere of influence.

Hillary at NEA Convention

2007-07-03T09:55:00.000-07:00

Check out Hillary's comments at the NEA Convention.

NEA Convention Op-ed: "The NEA Can't Force Political Spending"

2007-07-03T09:00:00.000-07:00

The Philadelphia Bulletin published an op-ed by EFF's Labor Policy Center Director Mike Reitz yesterday, "The NEA Can't Force Political Spending."

The article starts:

"This week the National Education Association descends upon Philadelphia for its annual convention. With 9,000 delegates attending, the nation's largest union will debate issues, elect officers and set policy for the year ahead. They might even talk about education.
"But don't expect the union to discuss the dirty little secret to its survival."

Mike then discusses the union's use of dues on politics mentioning that while only 7 percent of NEA members will contribute to the union's Political Action Committee (PAC), the NEA will spend hundreds of millions of dollars on the campaign, much of this in in-kind and get-out-the-vote expenditures targeted at Democratic leaning voters.

He concludes by calling on the NEA and the presidential candidates courting the union's favor this week to respect the individual choices of teachers and accept only voluntary contributions:

"It's time for the National Education Association to give members a choice about its political spending. And the Democratic presidential contenders who are courting the union's endorsement should pledge to accept only voluntary contributions from the union."

WEA President Hasse Sounds Off on Seattle Times Editorials

2007-07-02T15:33:00.000-07:00

Following the Davenport victory, the Seattle Times unleashed two editorials on the union ravaging its credibility (Slapdown of WEA and WEA ducks and weaves after Supreme Court loss). WEA President Charles Hasse probably tried to reply by submitting an op-ed of its own (that's the way responses are usually attempted), but evidently, he had to resort to writing a letter-to-the-editor. The letter was published in today's paper.

Hasse's letter is full of the same old stuff:

He says the union's willful illegal activity was done with the best interests of the children in mind.
He belittles the effect of the USSC ruling. Of course, he didn't say that the WEA was so scared of it that it ramed through HB 2079 giving all politicians involved a black eye.
He believes that "detractors"are out there to bash the union when in reality, the union is bashing teachers rights.
Hasse confidently concludes that "...the WEA trusts the courts will ultimately clarify Washington's murky campaign spending and reporting requirements..." Of course, if I were the WEA, had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to get loyal public officials elected who would pass favorable policies and appoint empathetic judges, and had spent another $580,000 in lobbying to get them to say and vote what I want, I think I could safely "trust" them too.

WEA acted in good faith

Under inflammatory headlines, but without an underlying basis of factual support, two recent editorials attacked the Washington Education Association after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the union ["Slapdown of WEA," Times, Opinion, June 15, and "WEA ducks and weaves after Supreme Court loss," Times, Opinion, June 19].

EFF arrives at NEA Convention; Pro-Life teachers make an impact

2007-07-02T08:35:00.000-07:00

After a red-eye flight and some unexpected mechanical malfunctions, I have finally arrived here in Philadelphia, site of the National Education Association Annual Convention. I am joined here by several teachers who oppose the union's use of mandatory dues for politics. Over the next couple of days, we will be talking with members of the media, reporting from inside the convention, and answering questions about our recent victory before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Another group of teachers has already had a major impact on the convention. Christian Newswire reports:

Seventy-five pro-life teachers, parents/taxpayers and children/students successfully picketed the NEA convention in Philadelphia on Sunday, July 1. Aged eight to eighty, they took positions on all four corners of Arch & 11th Streets, displaying high-visibility signs and posters easily seen by thousands of NEA Delegates disembarking from shuttle buses or entering and leaving the Convention center's doorways.
Pro-lifers and delegates were interviewed by reporters and photojournalists from FOX, Philadelphia Bulletin, Washington Times, Catholic Standard & Times, etc. Many delegates openly expressed disbelief, skepticism, and even shock, at the revelation that NEA was involved in abortion at all – much less in an advocacy role – much less pro-abortion.
They were totally unaware of NEA's long-standing "Family Planning Resolution" supporting "reproductive freedom" and "all methods of family planning" – including abortion. Some refused to accept the well-documented fact that NEA is one of Planned Parenthood's primary advocates and actually co-sponsored huge pro-abortion rallies in Washington in April 2004, April 1992, and November 1989.
A few belligerent delegates verbally berated the pro-lifers, accusing them of "lying". Others thanked pro-lifers for bringing NEA's abortion activism into sharp focus. Some said they would raise the issue on the Convention Floor and attempt to have NEA totally abandon its pro-abortion agenda and activism.
Bob Pawson, National Coordinator of PLEAS and NJEA member, said, "We joined NEA for collective bargaining representation; not to be misrepresented on socio-political or moral issues like abortion, homosexuality, or who to vote for. Respect the diversity of 3.2 million members. Totally disengage NEA from the abortion issue. Become truly neutral and completely non-involved."
"The NEA leadership's pro-abortion agenda is a perverse way of supposedly protecting our jobs. Babies are our business; our only business. For NEA to condone, much less promote, killing babies in their wombs is not only a moral outrage; it's economic suicide. Abortion costs us our jobs. NEA wants us unified for contract negotiations every few years, yet simultaneously divides us with radical, far left, extremist positions on issues like abortion. News flash: We don't feel unified. We feel betrayed. We resent having our dues monies used to subvert our personal moral values, and then being offered "thirty pieces of silver."
"I urge pro-life NEA members across America to run for union offices at all levels, including Convention Delegate. Take back our union. Join the NEA Reform Revolution."

EFF Plans a Surprise for the NEA Convention in Philadelphia

2007-06-28T15:57:00.000-07:00

The NEA convention is held around July 4th every year. This year, the convention will be held in Philadelphia.

Delegates have reported that the NEA is keeping the proposals on its agenda under wraps. They speculate this may be because the NEA wants to avoid the public relations disaster it experienced last year with the proposals on homosexuality.

EFF is planning a surprise of its own too.

Last year, EFF rented a billboard truck and plastered it with signs telling about:

The fat cat lifestyle of union bosses (It pays to be a union boss),
Union officials' ability to hijack teacher paychecks (No means No!) and
Union officials' unwillingness to truly represent teachers (Fair Representation).

This year, EFF will unveil another surprise. The only hint: We'll be there!

Stay tuned for details!

Letter to the Editor on Sweetheart Deals and Coercion

2007-06-28T10:09:00.000-07:00

This letter to the editor is a good read:

Union thwarts court - The Washington Education Association (WEA) owes a fine of $590,375 for breaking the law.
After Initiative 134 passed in 1992, the WEA arranged a sweetheart deal with then-Attorney General Chris Gregoire that allowed them to spend a portion of union dues collected from teachers for political purposes without the union members permission. The WEA also found it convenient to do the same with agency fees collected from non-union teachers.

Davenport Implications: Utah

2007-06-27T11:18:00.000-07:00

In Utah, the legislature passed the “Voluntary Contribution Act” (VCA), a form of paycheck protection, in 2001. The law wasn’t implemented until a few years later, but when it was, voluntary contributions to union Political Action Committees (PAC) plummeted. In fact, some union PAC’s had to closer their doors.

Utah is one of the 22 Right to Work state where workers do not have to join or pay a union unless they want. In these states, unions are completely voluntary. But as you will see, workers still need their paychecks protected.

Before the VCA was implemented, 68 percent of the Utah Education Association’s members contributed to the union’s PAC. Remember, each contribution was from a member who voluntarily joined the union.

Yet the year the VCA was enacted, contributions to the UEA’s PAC dropped from 68 percent of members to almost 7 percent. Why? We can only assume that most teachers were unaware that they had a choice. They learned that they didn’t have to support the UEA officials’ political agenda if they didn’t want to.

The drop in voluntary contributions has significantly reduced the UEA’s ability to protect the status quo and fund its political agenda. The UEA was unable to stop the Utah Legislature from passing some school choice and voucher laws earlier this year, so the UEA put the laws on the ballot in the form of an initiative, hoping voters will reject them.

With its PAC funds significantly cut, though, union officials are struggling to fund the campaign. One way UEA officials have circumvented the dilemma, though, is by using public facilities and funds to underwrite their campaign.

The most recent example is the Salt Lake City School District’s latest newsletter. The newsletter’s focus is “choice” and the lead article argues that “Salt Lake City Schools Are ‘Your Best Choice.’” While not overtly campaigning, the newsletter insinuates that the status quo, which is favored by the UEA, grants all the “choice” necessary for a quality education. This use of public mailing lists, printers, funds and other resources undermines the school choice and voucher laws and could be illegal.

While it is unfortunate that paycheck protection laws force union bosses to engage in illegal activity, they reveal them, and their morals, for who they are.

To read the article on the UEA’s schemes and listen to the news report, click here: District Newsletter Flirts with Vouchers and State Law

Editorial: Why Union Politics and "Union Security" Clauses Made the Davenport Decision Necessary

2007-06-25T16:30:00.000-07:00

A column in today’s Everett Herald, "Rulings could stem public-sector union actions," covers the case and emphasizes some points I mentioned last week about how the Davenport victory reflects on the Washington State Supreme Court.

Right off, the column jumps into a time machine as it reminisces about what it calls “simpler times” including the Cold War era. Yes, you’re probably wondering as I was how many could be nostalgic for the age of mutually assured destruction, but the author vocalizes its simplicity in comparison to today’s “complexity.”

What does the Cold War have to do with the Davenport victory? Yes, I wonder the same, and as you can guess from such an opening, the article takes an eternity to read. As such, a time machine might do you some good.

The article covers:

The economic theory behind unions: Unions restrict the supply of labor to raise wages for its members,
The emergence of the global economy in the 70’s and the Labor Movement’s resultant shift to the public sector,
The politicization of the Labor Movement (the inevitable result of unionizing the public sector),
Public sector unions’ growing dominance of the Labor Movement,
The rise of “agency shop” provisions,
And finally how union political involvement and agency shop provisions necessitated the Davenport decision.

The article concludes:

“Unions wielding political power aren't exactly new, but the shift from private enterprise to the public sector still has economists off balance, for the economic issues are often buried under political agendas. It was simpler when the coal miners or the auto workers wanted more money. But that's just nostalgia, isn't it.”

What? Back to economics? The author put together some good points and is right all around, but he lost the “simplicity” part of his own message.

More Presidential Candidates Weigh in on Davenport Victory!

2007-06-22T14:51:00.001-07:00

Republican Presidential Candidate Fred Thompson weighed in on the Davenport victory in an op-ed published on Townhall.com. In “Union Dues and Secret Ballots,” Thompson addresses union coercion and why unions are having to resort to coercive organizing and coercive political activism. In short, because, “In the last 25 or so years, private sector union membership has dropped from about 19 percent to under 8 percent today.” In fact, “Most decertification votes, giving workers the chance to end union representation, go against the unions.”

Why are unions losing the hearts and minds of the American workforce?

“…[T]hey often focus on politics instead of supporting their members. Last week, in fact, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against a Washington state teachers union that had been spending dues on political activities -- against the wishes of individual teachers. Some of those who protested the use of the funds weren't even union members but had to pay to keep their teachers' jobs.”
Unions give a lot of their members'-- and nonmembers'-- dues to political candidates, and they're really good at providing free labor to campaigns. So they have a lot of influence in certain parts of congress. That may explain, for example, why the House Appropriations Committee is apparently planning to cut the budget of the Office of Labor Management Services -- the office that investigates illegalities by unions.

Thompson concludes with a middle-of-the-road, but intellectually honest statement that is completely in line with Constitutional principals upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court Justices last week.

“In America, we need the right to join a union. We also need the right not to join a union.”

Washington AG Wins National Award for the Part he Played in the Davenport Victory

2007-06-22T14:13:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna was given the nationally acclaimed Supreme Court Best Brief Award by the National Association of Attorney Generals, in part, for his involvement in the Davenport victory.

The AG’s win in Washington v. WEA, which was consolidated with Davenport v. WEA, gave the Washington AG’s office a 5-0 record before the U.S. Supreme Court this year.

McKenna gave the credit to his top-notch staff.

“This award, coupled with our 5-for-5 record before the US Supreme Court this year, demonstrates the tremendous expertise and experience in our office, which is why we are considered one of the best public law offices in the nation.”

It was an honor to stand alongside the AG in this important fight for the First Amendment rights of Washington state teachers and workers all across the country.

Click HERE to read the AG’s press release (McKenna briefed on MySpace.com, leads tobacco settlement progress at national meeting of attorneys general). The relevant paragraphs are at the bottom of the release.

George Archibald on Davenport Victory and why "Freedom Matters"

2007-06-22T13:36:00.000-07:00

George Archibald, a national and investigative reporter for The Washington Times for 20 years, and nominated four times by The Washington Times for a Pulitzer Prize, wrote a great piece on the case. In fact, the title of the piece, “Freedom Matters,” rather mirrors EFF’s theme, “…Because Freedom Matters.”

[T]he Washington state supreme court ruled that public school educator unions could use mandatory dues of union members for political purposes they did not agree to. The United States Supreme Court said no in a unanimous ruling…
Woomba. Freedom matters (emphasis added).

He then goes on to expose union officials for what they are.

Let’s face it: Unions are socialist collectivist enterprises that exist just for their own self-interest. Their officers at all levels receive obscenely high pay and benefits at the expense of union members. Democrat more than Republican politicians cow-tow to these union people, who have vehemently opposed school improvement measures such as President Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act to force more rigor into taxpayer-funded American public education from kindergarten through 12th grade.

Let me interject here that EFF did something similar at the NEA’s convention in Orlando, Florida last summer. EFF rented a billboard truck and created some graphics to reveal the fat cat lifestyles of union bosses. For example, while the average teacher salary is $47,808 a year, nearly half of NEA employees receive more than $100,000 a year.

Archibald’s piece concludes by tying in an important concern felt by America’s Founders.

John Adams asked Thomas Jefferson in one of many letters between the two men over many years: “Who shall write the history of the American Revolution? Who can write it? Who will ever be able to write it?”
Good question. It’s still an unfolding story these days with global implications. Freedom matters (emphasis added).

Dori Monson Interviews a Teacher on the Davenport Victory

2007-06-21T11:43:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, Dori Monson, a talk show host on KIRO Radio, 710 AM, talked about the Davenport victory.

Click HERE to listen to the Davenport segment.

When introducing the topic, Dori said:

“So the liberal Washington State Supreme Court was revealed as being essentially just a judicial arm of the WEA because the U.S. Supreme Court, liberals and conservatives alike, it was a stunning unanimous 9-0 ruling overturned the Washington State Supreme Court edict.”

Dori's guest was a high school teacher from Warden, Washington, Angie Dorman, who was among the 35 teachers who attended the oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court on January 10, 2007. Angie is a well-spoken advocate for the teachers who are standing up for their First Amendment rights.

Throughout the course of the interview, Angie described why she is no longer a union member and objects to the union's political use of non-member fees. She also described how her trip to the U.S. Supreme Court affected her perspective of the Court system and the federal government. She said that, as she watched the oral arguments, she though, "Oh my God! People actually represent me! ...Whether we were talking about Souter, Ginsberg, Scalia, Roberts, the whole thing... they were sitting there... and they basically said 'You guys [the Washington Supreme Court and WEA] are way out there.'"

In concluding, Dori stated that the WEA is “...the most destructive force in educating our kids...”

Video: Lynn Harsh and Mike Reitz Respond to your Questions!

2007-06-20T17:49:00.001-07:00

EFF CEO Lynn Harsh and LPC Director Mike Reitz respond to your questions on a short video.

Click on the picture or click here for a high resolution video or here for a low resolution video.

Do Politics Influence the Judiciary? If so, where is the Outcry?

2007-06-20T15:20:00.000-07:00

Were politics a factor in the Washington State Supreme Court’s 6-3 Davenport decision? Very few have suggested it is, but Tracy Warner, a columnist at the Wenatchee World, believes politics played a huge part in the state justice’s decision.

Tracey poses the question: what if a Big Oil corporation had negotiated a contract with state officials requiring state workers to purchase only from that company or be fired, and the Big Oil company had charged an extra fee to fund its political campaign contributions in the state.

Would the state supreme court have ruled that requiring the Big Oil company to ask permission before spending that extra fee on politics is “entirely too much trouble for the company and detract from its political efforts” so much that it violates its First Amendment rights of free speech and free association?If the Court had supported Big Oil, would the public have remained mum about Big Oil's influence over justice?

Of course the answer is an emphatic “No!”

“If this had actually happened you could expect someone to suggest the Washington court let politics sway its view of the law, and that it appeared the court's sympathy for powerful and munificent Exxon had overcome its legal logic. People would madly question Big Oil's extreme influence over government, even the courts.”

Unions have not been shy about extending their influence to include the state’s Supreme Court justices. During last year’s Supreme Court race, unions, including the SEIU, and liberal groups formed “FairPAC,” raising $101,000 by early August.

Besides a Seattle Times editorial suggesting that the Washington State Supreme Court was “too deferential to political interests,” where is the outcry?

Who is the Biggest Loser in the Davenport Victory?

2007-06-20T13:05:00.000-07:00

An article in the Olympian today highlights a point that has been largely overlooked to date. While the WEA is the ultimate looser in the Davenport victory, the Washington state Supreme Court is the biggest—the six justices who found a way to twist the First Amendment to protect the rights of unions (campaign contributors) over the rights of individual teachers.

Justice Scalia wrote that the six Washington state Supreme Court justices were wrong on two counts:

First, the Washington State Supreme Court applied a test to balance what they thought were the competing rights of teachers and unions. Justice Scalia pointed out, however, that this balancing test doesn’t exist.

“[The agency-fee cases] were not balancing constitutional rights in the manner [the WEA and the Washington State Supreme Court] suggests, for the simple reason that unions have no constitutional entitlement to the fees of nonmember-employees.”

Second, even if the bogus balancing test the Washington State Supreme Court applied existed, the six justices applied it wrongly. It should have been balanced in favor of individual teachers.

“[C]ourts have an obligation to interfere with a union’s statutory entitlement no more than is necessary to vindicate the rights of non-members…”

In the same sense, the citizens of Washington are losers because, as Mr. DeForest noted:

"We, the people, look to the state Supreme Court to uphold the Constitution of this country. This decision by the U.S. Supreme Court says very clearly (albeit not in so many words) that the six state supreme court justices voting to uphold the WEA did not understand and/or correctly apply the First Amendment to the Constitution."

Coalition Partners: Pacific Justice Institute Profiled on Davenport Victory

2007-06-19T16:34:00.000-07:00

The Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) was profiled in a OneNewsNow.com article highlighting the Davenport victory.

You can listen to the report HERE.

"The head of the Pacific Justice Institute is hailing a Supreme Court ruling he says will protect the free-speech rights of teachers who have moral or religious objections to their union's political agenda."

PJI joined more than 30 other organizations by filing an amicus brief in support of Washington state teachers whose First Amendment rights had been trampled on by their union, the Washington Education Association.

In the article, PJI says it "could not agree more with the court's ruling in Davenport v. Washington Education Association." PJI President Brad Dacus also calls the court's ruling "a watershed decision" that will inspire other states to adopt similar paycheck protection bills."

Presidential Candidates Join the Fray – John Edwards Criticizes Davenport Decision

2007-06-19T13:17:00.000-07:00

Fox News reported today that the Democratic presidential candidates are lining up to woo unions for their endorsements, volunteers and cash (an amount certain to exceed the estimated more than $250 million spent in the last presidential election.).

“Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, begins union speeches with 'Solidarity Forever!' Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., advocated for union nurses fighting for a new contract at Finley Hospital in Dubuque, Iowa, in April. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., relocated an important Chicago fundraiser because it had been booked in a nonunion locale.”

John Edwards tried to top them off though, by issuing a statement criticizing the victory the U.S. Supreme Court handed teachers and other workers. Edwards’ statement clearly indicated he believes unions should be able to force teachers and workers to give him political contributions. He characterized the decision as, “upholding a Washington state law that made it more difficult for unions to use fees from workers they represent to support the union's political advocacy.”

He then grossly misconstrued some analogies, including equating unions with corporations.

"Corporations don't have to ask for shareholders' approval when they hire lobbyists, run ads or make campaign contributions to candidates running for governor. I believe labor unions have at least as great a right to be heard in the political process. Fortunately, Washington state has fixed its law. But if other states were to take advantage of the Court's unwise precedent today, it would silence the political voice of working families."

Edwards’ characterizations are wrong from both from the perspective of shareholders and from the perspective of consumers.

Shareholders are not forced to maintain ownership of the shares of a company they disagree with. They can simply sell.
Consumers are free to shop where they want, whether at a neighborhood supermarket or another across the street. Consumers can spend their money whenever and however they want.

Unions have a special right when it comes to collecting dues and fees. Justice Scalia wrote, “unions have no constitutional entitlement to the fees of nonmember-employees.” Later he wrote, “It is undeniably unusual for a government agency to give a private entity the power, in essence, to tax government employees.”

If it is unusual for the government to give a private organization the ability to tax employees, it must be even more unusual for corporations to have the ability to tax shareholders and employees.

Seattle Times: "WEA ducks and weaves after Supreme Court loss"

2007-06-19T09:36:00.000-07:00

The Seattle Times laid into the Washington Education Association this morning. In an editorial called, “WEA ducks and weaves after Supreme Court loss,” Times editors condemned the WEA and its allies in the Governor’s mansion and Legislature for conspiring to undermine the First Amendment rights of workers by passing a law to undermine the U.S. Supreme Court's decision.

“We understand why it was done that way: The Democrats get most union contributions, and they want large ones. But co-mingling amounts to a kind of money laundering, and the Legislature and governor never should have approved it.”

The Editors concluded that the WEA should have two accounts; one for representing workers, another for politics and organizing.

“Everyone the union represents would pay into the first account under the same formula, but only the members would pay into the second one. That way, the rights of the nonmembers would be protected and the members could see what the optional expenses were costing them.”

The proposal could be a decent solution. Teachers should be proud to see the Seattle Times standing next to them in this fight.

Justice Sanders Vindicated

2007-06-18T10:45:00.000-07:00

Remember back when the Washington State Supreme Court issued its verdict for Davenport (which, by the way, took 24 months to issue)? In his dissent from the majority, Justice Sanders predicted the U.S. Supreme Court would overturn the Washington State Supreme Court 9-0. To be honest, even I thought his projection seemed a little ludicrous, but he was right.

Association of Washington Businesses blogger, Richard Davis, reminds us of Justice Sanders’ prediction in a post from Thursday.

“The decision is a great vindication of our own Justice Richard Sanders, who [also criticizing the "mistaken rationale" of the majority on the Washington Supreme Court, in his] dissent at our state court. The case also vindicates the judgment and prowess of Attorney General Rob McKenna who made his first argument before the US Supreme Court in arguing the case.”

We agree. Props to Justice Sanders.

Have Questions About the Davenport Victory?

2007-06-15T17:26:00.000-07:00

Many of you have questions about the U.S. Supreme Court victory.

How does it affect the laws in Washington state?
How does it affect the ability of other states to protect workers rights?
Is the ruling broad or narrow?
How does HB 2079, the union-backed legislation that eviscerated the state’s paycheck protection law, affect the victory?

If you do, post your questions in the comment section below and EFF CEO Lynn Harsh will answer your questions in a video blog early next week.

Video: Press Conference

2007-06-15T17:20:00.001-07:00

Here is a video of EFF's press conference on Thursday, June 14, 2007.

Click here or on the picture for a high resolution video.
Click here for a low resolution video.

Coalition Partners Speak Out On Victory

2007-06-15T17:01:00.000-07:00

The Evergreen Freedom Foundation was not alone in its fight for the First Amendment rights of American workers. Here are some links to what some of these partners are saying about the case. I'll post more links as they come in.

Pacific Legal Foundation, High Court Delivers Win for Teachers, Loss for Coercive Union Power
Pacific Justice Institute, Supreme Court Rules Unanimously Against Unions
Mackinac Center for Public Policy, News Release: “Paycheck Protection” Law Safe – A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruling protects the rights of nonmembers from having union fees spent on politics.
Independence Institute, Think Tank Lauds Major Decision for Free Speech – Institute Celebrates U.S. Supreme Court Victory in Davenport v. WEA
The press release mentions an online video of five Colorado public school teachers (including one who was at the Davenport oral arguments) who described on video why they believed the U.S. Supreme Court needed to uphold their individual free speech rights.
Pioneer Institute, Unanimous SCOTUS: States can curb union use of dues for politics

More Media Mentions…

2007-06-15T16:56:00.000-07:00

WorldNetDaily wrote an article on the case and even used one of our graphics.

Teachers' free speech trumps union politics – Supreme Court calls claim labor has 'right' to financing 'immaterial'

The article includes quotes from Diane Lenning, Cindy Omlin, Karen Petty

Here is an article from USA Today: Supreme Court upholds fee burden on unions - Non-members can stay apolitical

Finally, SCOTUS Blog posted on the case again, More on the Decision in Davenport v. WEA. This Harvard law student needs to learn accuracy and get his fact straight, or at least source them. His statement, “most [agency fee payers] do not strongly object to the use of a small amount of their union fees” is unfounded. I have talked with many agency fee payers and most object to the political use of their fees.

WSJ: Protecting Your Paycheck

2007-06-15T14:29:00.000-07:00

In this editorial, the Wall Street Journal ties in the U.S. Supreme Court’s Davenport decision with the Employee Free Choice Act, which bans secret ballot votes for ratification election in favor of card check drives in which union officials can “recruit” signers at work, at home and anywhere in-between.

“In a rebuke to the coercive tactics of Big Labor, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday that states may require unions to get permission from nonmembers before using their dues money for political activities. The decision is especially timely, given that next week Senate Democrats are scheduled to vote to eliminate secret-ballot elections for union organizing.”
“As more U.S. workers have refused to join unions, Big Labor has become more reliant on coercion, and Democrats are trying to make that arm-twisting easier… President Bush has vowed to veto the bill, but it's also encouraging that the Supreme Court has now rejected this union ploy of dues coercion disguised as ‘free speech.’”

Read more here.

Gregoire: "No Comment"

2007-06-15T14:01:00.000-07:00

A Vancouver Columbian reporter asked the Governor's office to comment on the Davenport ruling becasue "[i]t was Gregoire, as attorney general, who originally argued the constitutionality of the Fair Campaign Practices Act in 2004."

"Lars Ericksen, a spokesman for the governor, said she would have no comment
on the Supreme Court ruling"

Read more at "McKenna calls decision 'important victory' for workers."

Attorney General Press Release

2007-06-14T16:55:00.000-07:00

The AG released his press release a few hours ago. Here is a link to it as well as some quotes.

"Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna won his first case before the United States Supreme Court today, persuading the Court to unanimously uphold a state initiative requiring unions to obtain prior permission from non-members before using their representation fees for political purposes."
"When non-union members in Washington are required to pay fees to the union as a condition of employment, there is no reason to require them to bear the burden of affirmatively objecting to prevent the union from using their money to promote political issues or candidates they do not support,” McKenna stated. “Workers who have already said ‘no’ to joining a union should not be required to say ‘no’ a second time to prevent their money from being spent for political purposes."

WEA Press Release

2007-06-14T11:43:00.000-07:00

U.S. Supreme Court issues ruling in Washington vs. WEA

I'll comment on it later.

UPDATE:

The WEA mentions multiple times that they didn't understand the law and that the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC), which oversee's enforcement of campaign finance regulations, would not clarify the law.

WEA president Charles Hasse said, "All along we've sought clarification on this murky, poorly-written statute. Based on this ruling, it appears that the State Supreme Court must now clarify the intent of the statute as it stood when this lawsuit was filed."

I must make a correction, though. I attended a PDC hearing yesterday, June 13, 2007, which wa held, in part, to prevent such assertions of confusing language and application from unions. During the meeting, PDC Executive Director Vicki Rippie said that she could only count 1.5 to 2 times in which union requested clarification from the PDC on 42.17.760, the state's paycheck protection law. Jim Oswald from the Washington State Labor Council (the AFL-CIO umbrella organization overseeing, in part, union lobbying and political activity) agreed saying that, in his recollection, the unions only asked for clarification 1.5 to 2 times. WEA attorney Harriet Strassburg was sitting at the table and didn't correct Mr. Oswald's comment.

News Articles

2007-06-14T11:37:00.001-07:00

Here is a list of press releases and news articles on the case:

EFF press release: Teachers and EFF Win Unanimous Victory at U.S. Supreme Court

Click here to Google Search news stories on the Davenport ruling.

Wall Street Journal: High Court Rules Diplomats Owe New York City Taxes (and Rules 9-0 for Davenport) – The U.S. Supreme Court Thursday, voting 9-0, backed a Washington state law that bars public-sector labor unions from spending nonunion employee dues on political campaign spending without first getting permission from an employee.

Reuters, High court limits union use of nonmember fees - The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously upheld a Washington state law that restricts how labor unions can use fees collected from nonmembers for political purposes.

Los Angeles Times, Supreme Court rules against public employee unions
Tacoma News Tribune, WEA foe wins a biggie
CNN, High court rules against unions on election spending
The Oregonian, Olympia think tank claims victory over Washington teachers union

The Columbian, Olympia think tank claims victory over Washington teachers union – The Evergreen Freedom Foundation says today's U.S. Supreme Court decision is a victory for the Olympia think tank in its battle against the state teachers union.
Evergreen's director of labor policy, Mike Reitz (rights), says the court ruled that the "First Amendment rights of teachers are not trumped by the union's ability to collect dues."

Blogs:

Postman Blog: Unions lose, but impact muted, in U.S. Supreme Court case
Sound Politics: SCOTUS rules for teachers, EFF
SCOTUS Blog: What Davenport Should Mean for Wisconsin Right to Life – SCOTUS Blog contributor Marty Lederman, who is a union sympathizer and used to work for the law firm representing the WEA, wrote a blurb on how he thinks Davenport will affect other cases coming out this year, particularly the Wisconsin Right to Life case. Given his political and ideological leanings, read his analysis with a grain of salt.
SayAnythingBlog: Supreme Court Rules ?Opt In? Law For Union Dues Used For Politics Isn?t Unconstitutional

MEDIA ADVISORY: EFF to hold Press Conference on U.S. Supreme Court Decision

2007-06-14T11:28:00.000-07:00

The Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF), the original complainant in the case and a non-partisan policy group based in Olympia, WA, will hold a press conference to discuss the impact of today's ruling.

The participants will give brief comments on the case and how it will affect workers in every state across the country. They will also be available to take questions.

WHO: The press conference will feature the following guests:

Bob Williams.– President of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation. The Foundation filed the original complaint against the Washington Education Association for using nonmember dues for political purposes in violation of state law.
Gary Davenport – The named plaintiff in the Davenport class action lawsuit brought by teachers against the WEA.
Steven T. O'Ban – Attorney representing the Davenport Class.

WHERE:

Offices of Ellis, Li & McKinstry PLLC
Two Union Square, 55th Floor
601 Union Street
Seattle, WA 98101-3906

WHEN: Today, Thursday, June 14, 2007 at 1:30PM

HB 2079 Did Not Affect the Supreme Court's Ruling

2007-06-14T09:39:00.000-07:00

The U.S. Supreme Court said HB 2079’s changes to .760 did not affect its decision, nor the applicability of the ruling in Washington state. Scalia wrote that injuries occurred under the old law, that the old law was constitutional, and the WEA should still be subject to the fines for intentionally violating the law.

“Washington has since amended §760 to codify a narrower interpretation of ‘use’ of agency-shop fees than the interpretation adopted below by the state trial court that passed on that question. … As respondent concedes, however, id., at 3, these cases are not moot. … [I]t still matters whether the Supreme Court of Washington was correct to hold that that version was inconsistent with the First Amendment. Our analysis of whether §760’s affirmative-authorization requirement violates the constitutional rights of respondent is not affected by the amendment….” (Supreme Court ruling, page 3)

The U.S. Supreme Court remanded the decision back down to the trial court for implementation. When the lower court re-imposes its earlier judgment, it will have to determine how HB 2079’s changes should be applied.

As we said before, HB 2079 merely ensured that .760 stays embroiled in litigation. Attorney General Rob McKenna (AG) fully expects this to happen also. When legislators were considering changing the law, the AG wrote a letter listing the reasons why he believes the law may be unconstitutional and eventually struck down (the court ruled in Street and Abood that the accounting procedure HB 2079 implements is unconstitutional).

If a court eventually strikes HB 2079’s changes to .760, the law will revert back to its original form and the injunction, which gave detailed instructions on how the WEA was to comply with the law, will be in effect.

Link to Brief and Choice Quotes

2007-06-14T09:38:00.000-07:00

Here is a link to the Davenport brief.

The first section, the syllabus, contains most of the best quotes of the opinion.

Here are some choice quotes:

On page 5, Scalia writes, "It is undeniably unusual for a government agency to give a private entity the power to tax government employees."

“Unions have no constitutional entitlement to the fees of nonmember-employees.” (page 6)
“As applied to public-sector unions, §760 is not fairly described as a restriction on how the union can spend its money; it is a condition placed upon the union’s extraordinary state entitlement to acquire and spend other people’s money.” (page 8)
“Respondent’s improvident accounting practices do not render §760 unconstitutional. We note as well that, given current technology, it will not likely be burdensome for any nonmember who wishes to do so to provide affirmative authorization for use of his fees for electoral expenditures.” (footnote on page 8)
“We do not believe that the voters of Washington impermissibly distorted the marketplace of ideas when they placed a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral limitation on the State’s general authorization allowing public-sector unions to acquire and spend the money of government employees.” (page 10)

Court rules against labor unions in lawsuit challenging use of worker fees

2007-06-14T08:29:00.000-07:00

From the Seattle Times:

In a Washington state case, the U.S. Supreme Court said today that states may force public sector labor unions to get consent from workers before using their fees for political activities.

In a ruling issued today, the court unanimously upheld a Washington state law that applied to public employees who choose not to join the union that represents them in contract talks with state and local governments. The workers are compelled to pay the equivalent of union dues, a portion of which the union uses for political activities.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the court, said the law does not violate the union's First Amendment rights.

Read more here.

A Victory for Teachers!

2007-06-14T07:24:00.001-07:00

In a 9-0 decision this morning, the U.S. Supreme Court Justices ruled that states can require unions to get permission before spending dues on politics.

This long-awaited victory is a vindication of the free speech rights of Washington state teachers, and by extension, millions of workers throughout the country. Workers cannot be forced to make political contributions against their will.

I will keep you posted on developments throughout the day.

Read the SCOTUS Blog's short post on the decision here.

SCOTUS Blog Predicts Scalia to Write Davenport Opinion

2007-06-12T09:45:00.000-07:00

In a post on the SCOTUS Blog yesterday, contributor Marty Lederman predicted that "Justice Scalia was probably assigned to write the merits majority in Davenport."

Mr. Lederman used to work for the law firm that represented the WEA and wants the union to prevail, so his prediction implies a positive outcome for teachers.

If Scalia writes the opinion, we can probably anticipate the same hard-hitting, pithy logic he has become known for. During oral arguments, Justice Scalia asked the WEA attorney some of the hardest hitting questions. A particular exchange between the two may shed some light on what he will write.

During oral arguments, Justice Scalia commented, "Here is the Government acting as a coercer. It's because of the Government that you're allowed to get this money from these non-union members."

The union attorney replied, "Well, I don't believe the Court has ever put it quite that way in the Government speech cases, the Government funding cases." (Transcript, pages 31-32)

Maybe Scalia will take this opportunity to “put it… that way…”

The Providence Journal: Court considering union dues case

2007-06-01T16:37:00.000-07:00

The Providence Journal and ScrippsNews picked up an article Mike Reitz wrote. Here are some highlights.

And remember, the U.S. Surpeme Court could hand down its ruling in this case at anytime, even this Monday.

Court considering union dues case

The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in the consolidated cases of Washington vs. Washington Education Association and Davenport vs. WEA, which could have major implications for organized labor and the free- speech rights of workers nationwide.

If the questions from the justices are any indication, the court could be poised to issue a ruling that reshapes national labor policy.

The Washington Education Association claimed the requirement to get permission imposed an "insurmountable hurdle" that "cuts deeply" into the First Amendment rights of the union. Justice Anthony Kennedy repeatedly scolded the union lawyer for ignoring the rights of teachers. "You begin by talking about the First Amendment, but you proceed as if there are no First Amendment rights of workers involved at all," he said.

U.S. Supreme Court Agrees To Read The Supplemental Briefs

2007-05-22T18:04:00.000-07:00

On Monday, May 21, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court justices agreed to read the supplemental briefs filed by the WEA and Washington state after HB 2079 was signed by the Governor. The contradictory positions set forth in the union brief will probably amuse and outrage the justices more than enlighten them on the developing aspects of the case.

The Davenport attorneys filed a motion opposing the union’s motion here.

The Washington State Attorney General’s brief addressed the WEA’s arguments. They highlighted the contradictory argument the union is making (“Because of HB 2079, we think the law is now Constitutional, but we still want you to affirm the lower court’s decision and throw out the law.”) and pointed out that the union's preferred interpretation of the law was not constitutional under the Abood case, where the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the fraudulent accounting practice HB 2079 implemented.

A copy of the U.S. Supreme Court’s order granting review of the supplemental briefs here:

MONDAY, MAY 21, 2007, ORDERS IN PENDING CASES

Education Week: Law May Affect Union Case Before U.S. Supreme Court

2007-05-22T12:01:00.000-07:00

A U.S. Supreme Court case pitting Washington state and some teachers against the Washington Education Association may be affected by a change to the state’s election law.

The state and the nonunion teachers sued the teachers’ union separately for allegedly violating the original statute, which barred unions from using money in political campaigns that was collected as “agency fees” from nonmember workers without first receiving their assent. The Washington Supreme Court ruled that the law was an unconstitutional infringement of the union’s free-speech rights.

Read more here.

Governor fundamentally alters voter-approved paycheck protection law

2007-05-18T13:56:00.000-07:00

A few quotes from a news release from the Washington House Republicans:

Deputy Republican Leader Doug Ericksen believes voter sentiment is being pushed aside by a bill signed last week that fundamentally alters a 1992 initiative preventing unions from using dues from nonmembers for political activities without their consent. The 42nd District lawmaker also believes nonmembers are being treated unfairly, while the governor approves a law that directly benefits some of her biggest campaign contributors.
“We’re seeing one-party control pre-empting a U.S. Supreme Court decision and, more importantly, ignoring the will of the voters who sent a clear message,” said Ericksen, R-Ferndale. “The governor is failing to protect the voices of people who are not union members but are directly impacted by the actions of unions.”

Read more here.

Cartoon: The Governor's Union Puppet Masters

2007-05-18T11:02:00.000-07:00

EFF’s own Joel Sorrel drew this cartoon to highlight Gregoire’s explanation of why she left the emergency clause in HB 2079.

The WEA used HB 2079, which the emergency clause put into effect immediately, in a misguided attempt to box the U.S. Supreme Court justices into a corner. The union suggested that, because of the change in the law, the Justices limit the scope of their ruling to only consider past violations, not future application of the Free Speech principals discussed during oral arguments.

Colorado Teachers Speak Out

2007-05-17T10:37:00.000-07:00

In this newly released video clip, Colorado teachers share their thoughts on the U.S. Supreme Court cases Davenport v. Washington Education Association and Washington v. Washington Education Association.

Three teachers explain how they share the cause of freedom Washington state teachers are taking a stand for. Some give examples of how their local unions have affected their lives and jobs and express frustration over the cumbersome and oppressive system the union protects. One even shares how the union harassed her for questioning its illegal practices.

These are the stories of experienced, dedicated, and effective teachers who have learned by personal experience that the union is not out to help them or their students. Take a look!

Paycheck protection end run

2007-05-17T08:07:00.000-07:00

The Wall Street Journal covers the union's attempt to end run the Supreme Court ruling on the Washington vs. WEA case:

Washington State Governor Christine Gregoire pulled a fast one last Friday
when she quietly signed a bill that guts a state paycheck protection law
currently being debated in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court....

"You should only be as strong as the support behind you," says Michael Reitz
of the Olympia-based Evergreen Freedom Foundation, "and it shouldn't be
artificially inflated with coerced donations." But until the courts say
otherwise, labor unions will get away with coercing cash at will.

A PDF copy of the article is available here.

An Overview of the new Motions

2007-05-16T16:51:00.000-07:00

We posted the recently filed briefs on the Teachers-vs-Union website. Here is a summary of the briefs.

The WEA filed two documents; 1) a Motion to File Supplemental Brief and 2) a Supplemental Brief.

WEA Motion to File Supplemental Brief – The WEA asks the U.S. Supreme Court for permission to file their supplemental brief.

WEA Supplemental Brief – The WEA says three things:

The WEA brings HB 2079 to the attention of the Supreme Court justices.
The WEA explains that they “urged the courts below to read Sections 760… along the lines of the statutory gloss provided by HB 2079…”
The WEA concludes by trying to put the U.S. Supreme Court Justices in a box. The union tells the High Court that, because HB 2079 changed the law the union admitted to violating, any ruling the Justices issue will only apply to past violations, not the union's future conduct.

Davenport’s Opposition to WEA’s Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Brief – The Davenport motion is simply a motion urging the Court to deny the WEA’s motion to file a supplemental brief (the union's first document). It does not address the legal issues raised by the WEA’s Supplemental Brief.

The Davenport motion simply argues that the WEA’s supplemental brief does not address any of the issues that were argued before the U.S. Supreme Court, whether in the briefs filed in November or in the oral arguments in January. It concludes:

“For these reasons, § 760 as amended has no application to Davenport, and is not relevant to any issue that is properly before this Court in this case. The Court should deny the motion and proceed to decide this case as briefed, argued and submitted.”

State of Washington’s Motion to File Supplemental Brief and Supplemental Brief – The state’s brief addresses the union's statements presented in its supplemental brief (the WEA's second document, not the first). It asks the court to deny the WEA's brief because it's statements and arguments are wrong.

The state’s brief is in three parts too.

The state agrees with the WEA's statement in its brief that HB 2079 does not render the case moot.
The state argues that the change to 760 “is not relevant to the Question presented” and that the union already admitted to violating the law.
The state argues that HB 2079’s changes to 760 are unconstitutional in light of Abood v. Detroit Board of Education.

The state concludes by again urging the Court to reverse the lower court’s decision.

What is Gregoire's Emergency? "The union asked me to."

2007-05-14T16:55:00.000-07:00

Governor Gregoire had everything to gain and nothing to lose by vetoing the emergency clause in HB 2079. So why did she pass up the opportunity? Adam Wilson, over at The Olympian, asked and received this answer:

“Because they [the union] asked me specifically that it not be vetoed because they continue to take money in and this will relieve the cloud, with the emergency clause in place,” she said. “Rather than wait until some later date when from here ‘till there will be a cloud over what use they can make with the money.”

On its face, it sounds like the union wanted the emergency clause because it would be too inconvenient to treat agency fees collected now differently from those collected after July 22, 2007.

Keep in mind that she vetoed three emergency clauses the same day she signed HB 2079.

HB 2118 relating to installing mobile and manufactured homes. The governor said this about the emergency clause: "We believe that the desire to avoid potential inconvenience should not be treated as a public emergency warranting an emergency clause."
HB 1910 relating to tax incentives. The governor said, the emergency clause "is not essential to the bill’s proper and timely implementation."
HB 1811 relating to installing automatic sprinklers in nightclubs. Regarding the emergency clause, the governor said, "The bill contains an unnecessary emergency clause... Emergency clauses should be used sparingly and only when necessary."

So putting the pieces together, convenience for a state agency (L&I) is not an emergency, but convenience for a union (the WEA) is.

WEA Files Supplemental Brief with SCOTUS

2007-05-14T16:26:00.000-07:00

Was Rep. McDermott duped or did he know all along?

The Washington Education Association (WEA) filed a supplemental brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington v. Washington Education Association and Davenport v. Washington Education Association on Friday, May 11, 2007 arguing that they now believe RCW 42.17.760 is Constitutional. Of course, Friday was the day Governor Gregoire signed HB 2079, the bill that, according to the AP, will allow “labor unions to spend nonmembers' bargaining fees on political causes without first getting their permission.”

The WEA brief argues that, as amended, .760 is now constitutional and any SCOUS ruling will “control only as to the statute’s retrospective application.” The Court’s decision won’t apply to the union’s future activities.

According to its sponsors and the union, this bill, supposedly, was not going to affect the case before the U.S. Supreme Court. For the union, either this was a classic case of “not letting the left hand know what the right hand was doing” or it was premeditated misinformation to politicians, the public, and news venues.
This also explains why Gregoire left the emergency clause in the bill. Were the law not immediately in effect, the WEA could not have filed this brief. Obviously there was some behind-the-scenes planning.

During the House State Government & Tribal Affairs Committee hearing, Rep. Joe McDermott, said the bill does not affect the U.S. Supreme Court Case. (House State Government & Tribal Affairs Committee Hearing on February 20, 2007 at 6:00:00 PM at 1:37 on the recording:)

“This bill does not interfere with the court case that has recently been argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. That case, um, delves into the First Amendment, um, constitutionality of the underlying statute.
“This amendment, this addition to the existing statute, um, in no way changes, or even, um, makes more palatable to the court the First Amendment issue being argued before them.
“If the statute is struck down, what we’re adding in this bill to this statute would go down with it. It doesn’t make it any easier to defend or uphold.”

McDermott’s statement was repeated by both the House and Senate legislative committee staff, the union officials testifying in support of the bill, and the House Bill Summary: “The bill does not interfere with the Supreme Court case.”

Maybe Rep. Joe McDermott should give a declaration affirming that HB 2079 has no effect on the USSC case (We can probably get the same from the union officials who testified in committee too.).

Two wrongs shouldn't take away a right

2007-05-14T09:27:00.000-07:00

From the Orange County Register:

The Washington state Supreme Court's WEA ruling essentially held that two wrongs – one based on a nonexistent group's constitutional rights and the other based on faulty reasoning about union rights – could take away valuable rights from those who choose not to join unions. However, we can hope that the U.S. Supreme Court's pending decision reflects the skepticism that several justices displayed during oral arguments in January, and the court will overturn this mistaken sacrifice of important worker rights.

Read more here.

Governor Gregoire “preserves union power” at the expense of teachers and voters; signs union “bail-out” bill into law

2007-05-14T09:24:00.000-07:00

OLYMPIA—Today, Governor Gregoire signed House Bill 2079. The bill amends a
statute that requires unions to get permission from nonmembers before spending their fees on political activity. The U.S. Supreme Court is currently reviewing the constitutionality of this statute in two cases brought by teachers and the state Attorney General against the Washington Education Association.

Read more here.

Tricky Call for Governor

2007-04-17T14:55:00.000-07:00

From the Tacoma News Tribune's editorial writers:

Gov. Chris Gregoire is in a spot. She has to decide whether to sign a bill strongly backed by legislative Democrats and the state's biggest teacher union.
It should be a no-brainer for the Democratic gov – except for one thing: As attorney general in 2000, she filed the lawsuit against the Washington Education Association that the bill is designed to counteract. And the state's current attorney general, Republican Rob McKenna, contends the bill is unconstitutional.

Read more, including quotes from EFF's Mike Reitz, here.

Senate passes HB 2079 to preserve union power

2007-04-13T15:55:00.000-07:00

On Friday the Senate passed House Bill 2079. HB 2079 amends a statute that requires unions to get permission from nonmembers before spending their fees on political activity. The U.S. Supreme Court is currently reviewing the constitutionality of this statute in two cases brought by teachers and the state Attorney General against the Washington Education Association.

Read more here.

The Olympian covers the story, too.

Does union power trump the First Amendment?

2007-04-03T10:57:00.000-07:00

An explanation of the problems in HB 2079 by EFF's Michael Reitz.

Read more here.

Senate Committee Pass HB 2079 to "preserve union power"

2007-03-30T12:14:00.000-07:00

Read more here.

WEA works to use teachers funds for politics

2007-03-29T10:14:00.000-07:00

An excellent article by teacher Angie Dorman on HB 2079 in the Columbia Basin Herald:

House Bill 2079 -- Regarding Use of Agency Shop Fees (nonunion member representation fees) -- under consideration in the Washington state House of Representatives, is indicative of the kind of government the WEA would have us live under, one that can be manipulated, one that does not believe in the processes of our republic. WEA has no faith in the system, much less classroom teachers. This bill is an example of why I am not a member of the WEA and chose Northwest Professional Educators as my professional association. I trust the system. This piece of legislation makes it obvious that the WEA does not believe in our system.

Read more here.

Public hearing on HB 2079

2007-03-22T10:11:00.000-07:00

Available here. Listen for teachers Amber Birks and Gordon Kenny as well as EFF's Mike Reitz.

House Oks political spending of nonmembers' union fees

2007-03-10T10:07:00.000-08:00

The state House passed a measure Friday night that would allow labor unions to spend nonmembers' bargaining fees on political causes without first getting their permission, an issue that is currently under appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Read more here.

Bills are WEA’s ‘Hail Mary’ attempt to circumvent court

2007-02-26T16:53:00.000-08:00

A well-written article by Jeff Leer in the Skagit Valley Herald.

I have heard from many people who cannot understand why union members would object to their money being used to improve their jobs or wages. Perspective is everything. From their vantage point, it is confusing. But for those of us who don’t vote solely based on our jobs and wallets, it is our right not to contribute.
How legislation affects my family, educational beliefs or conservative principles might not line up with the union’s “ideas” of what’s best for education or its workers. They can’t speak for me. That is called free speech.
I find it ironic that I am responsible and intelligent enough for parents to trust me everyday with their kids, but the union feels they have to “think” for me in terms of how I spend my money on politics.

Read more here.

Press Release: House committee passes union bailout bill

2007-02-22T10:30:00.000-08:00

The House Committee on State Government & Tribal Affairs passed HB 2079 out of committee by a 6-3 vote with a “do pass” recommendation. This bill amends a state law that requires unions to get permission from non-member agency fee payers before spending their dues on political activity.

Read more here.

Edspresso: Ignoring Voters and Courts

2007-02-22T09:55:00.000-08:00

As (blogger) Ryan (Boots of edspresso.com) reported earlier this month, Washington state legislators recently introduced two bills (one in the House, one in the Senate) to allow unions to use non-member fees on political activity without getting permission from individual workers.

Read more at the Alliance for School Choice edspresso blog here.

The Fox Guarding the Henhouse

2007-02-22T09:50:00.001-08:00

A podcast update to the last post: According to the Seattle Times, the Washington Education Association drafted legislation that attempts an end-run around the pending U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Read more here.

Union bailout -- state emergency?

2007-02-07T10:01:00.000-08:00

Lawmakers in the Washington Legislature have introduced two bills that would effectively eliminate the requirement for unions to get permission from agency fee payers before spending dues on politics -- the very law at issue in our Supreme Court cases.

Evergreen Freedom Foundation podcast.

Do union rights trump rights of individuals?

2007-02-06T08:46:00.000-08:00

In today's Baltimore Sun.

Teachers at the Supreme Court

2007-02-05T10:04:00.000-08:00

On January 10, 2007, approximately 40 teachers joined Evergreen Freedom Foundation staff members in Washington, D.C., for the consolidated cases of Washington v. Washington Education Association and Davenport v. WEA.

Video of press conference now available

2007-02-02T12:10:00.000-08:00

Thanks to SVC Alumnus for taking the time to follow this case and continuing to highlight the importance of teachers' First Amendment free speech rights.

Yesterday he posted an interview with EFF. It's well worth reading for additional information on some of the details and implications of this case.

I just wanted to let everyone know that the video of the press conference that is referred to in question number two is now available here. We'll comment on it in the upcoming days.

Teachers Go to Washington

2007-01-26T13:58:00.000-08:00

Teacher Jeff Leer's first-person account of his trip to Washington, D.C. is up on the Alliance for School Choice blog, edspresso:

As I stood shivering in the frigid morning air, my mind scrolled back to all the events that have transpired to bring me to this moment. In particular I remembered a conversation I had with a seasoned veteran teacher at my school who told me that the wheels of justice turn slowly, but they do turn. My reminiscing was brutally interrupted by the cutting wind that was blowing at 5:00 a.m. as I held on tightly to my cup of coffee, hoping to suck out every ounce of heat I could. Here I was standing with a number of teachers on the steps of the Supreme Court of the United States, hoping to get a seat to hear oral arguments in a case that had it origins some 14 years ago....

Area educators go to Washington, D.C.

2007-01-25T15:58:00.000-08:00

From the Snoqualmie Valley Record:

Beryl Griner, a Snoqualmie Valley School District teacher, and her husband Dan Griner, a retired Carnation teacher, recently returned from Washington, D.C., where they attended a pivotal U.S. Supreme Court hearing Jan. 10 that directly affects thousands of Washington teachers.

At issue was whether the First Amendment right of unions to speak on behalf of its members trumps the free speech rights of nonunion members who do not want to pay for the union's politics but who are forced to pay for collective bargaining. The consolidated cases are Davenport v. Washington Education Association and Washington v. Washington Education Association. The Court has not issued a decision in the case.

The Griners - members of Northwest Professional Educators, a nonunion professional educators organization offering many of the same benefits of unions such as liability insurance and legal services - joined teachers from around the country to advocate for individual teachers' free speech rights not to fund union politics they do not support.

Teachers in Court

2007-01-25T09:39:00.000-08:00

From columnist James J. Kilpatrick:

Justice Clarence Thomas stayed mum, as usual, but all eight of his colleagues got into the act two weeks ago when the Supreme Court heard argument in the case of a teachers union. When oral argument ended at noon, most observers probably thought the union's luck had run out with the clock, but these things are tough to call....
Seven years ago the free-spirited Evergreen Freedom Foundation, the National Right to Work Legal Foundation and the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission combined in suits against the union. The plaintiffs won in a trial court, where Judge Gary R. Tabor hit the WEA with a $600,000 judgment. In March of last year, the free spirits lost in the state Supreme Court. Their appeal followed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Favorite Quotes 3

2007-01-24T15:44:00.000-08:00

In his closing statement of oral arguments AG Rob McKenna nailed it with this line:

MR. MCKENNA: The State of Washington's position is that non-members should not be required to say no twice. They said no when they chose not to join the union. The union's position now is, well, we get to use your money for political purposes unless you say no a second time. That does not seem to be a reasonable default position to take. P 49

“Should not be required to say no twice” is really just a lawyer’s way of saying “No should mean No.”

Lots of people understand this concept and why it is so important.

The National Education Association’s website even features a column with this line:

“"No” means “no way, no how.” In some cases, legal action might be necessary.”

For once we couldn't agree more with the NEA. We just wish they would agree with themselves.

Top Teacher Takes on Union

2007-01-24T14:51:00.000-08:00

One of the teachers who accompanied us to the Supreme Court hearing, Angie Dorman, was featured in the Columbia Basin Herald and the Tri-city Citizen. From the Tri-City Citizen:

Warden High School teacher Angie Dorman is one of the best teachers in the country, but she’s taking a stand when it comes to being represented by the state’s most powerful teachers union.

Dorman went to Washington, D.C., this month to attend a pivotal U.S. Supreme Court hearing that will directly affect thousands of Washington teachers like herself — by limiting the political power of the 70,000-member Washington Education Association.

Health teacher visits D.C. to hear justices

2007-01-23T13:56:00.000-08:00

Teacher and longtime friend of EFF, Jeff Leer, is featured in an Everett Herald article:

A Lake Stevens teacher recently got a first-hand view of U.S. Supreme Court proceedings in Washington, D.C., as it heard a dispute involving the Washington Education Association, the state teachers' union.
"It was absolutely worth every goose bump," said Jeff Leer, a member of Northwest Professional Educators. Leer, a health teacher at North Middle School, doesn't belong to the WEA. But it represents him as part of collective bargaining.
Nonunion members can't be forced to pay for the union's political activism, the court has ruled, but they can be charged a fee for labor negotiations.
"No one should have money taken from their paycheck to pay for someone else's politics," Leer said.

Law professors weigh in

2007-01-23T11:05:00.000-08:00

Allison Hayward, an assistant professor of law at George Mason Law School, attended the oral arguements and posted some coments on her blog, Skepticseye.com. Here is an excerpt:

No Fur Flying
The argument in Davenport was engaging and worrisome. I fear that if the Court adopts an election integrity” rationale for the opt-in dues requirement, that could open an entirely new area of regulations applicable to the private internal arrangements of groups. Unions here argue that they are being singled out - but unions in general are singled out in the law since they have the capacity to collect agency fees from nonmembers in the first instance. The Junior League or Chamber of Commerce can’t come by your house and force you to pay dues.
I predict the Washington Supreme Court’s decision will be reversed,….
Justice Alito asked the best question, I think, which was along the lines of “If an opt-in requirement isn’t that burdensome and these people aren’t members anyway, how is it that the First Amendment tolerates anything except an opt-in requirement.”
Solicitor General Clement tried to distinguish “compulsion” as in not being able to object, with needing to assent in order for the unioin (sic) to use your money. He got a little bogged down in what standard a court might look at to determine whether the union’s “consent” procedures were sufficient.
The whole point, of course, is that people are busy and unions may not be completely straightforward about providing a process for oppting-out (sic). One could argue that if there’s such a record, a state could decide to protect nonmember political association interests by enacting something like Washington’s law.

Also, Rick Hasen, law professor at Loyola Law School, author of “The Supreme Court and Election Law: Judging Equality from Baker v. Carr to Bush v. Gore,” and editor of Election Law blog posts on the case and says he “would not be surprised to see a 9-0 reversal (though perhaps multiple opinions).”

Bloggers Chime In

2007-01-23T10:52:00.000-08:00

Supreme Court Times Blog

The editors at the Supreme Court Times Blog posted some blurbs on the case and they follow in part.

Davenport v. WEA will go for Davenport

A public sector union collects money from nonmembers, as required by a collective bargaining agreement backed up by a state statute. The state statute says the union can spend the money for political purposes only if the nonmember first "affirmatively authorizes" it. The union wants to spend the money first, subject to a possible refund later on. The Supreme Court of the State of Washington ruled in favor of the union, saying the statute requiring nonmembers to "opt in" was a violation of free speech.
I have previously said I thought the state court was wrong in this case. Davenport v. Washington Education Association - Review granted. Therefore, I expect a reversal from the US Supreme Court and a loss for the Washington Education Association. [Details, briefs, etc.]

Davenport v. Washington Education Association - Review granted

Can a state tell a public-sector union that it has to get non-members' consent before it uses "fair share" fees for political purposes?

Further down in the post:

The Supreme Court of Washington held (State ex rel Public Disclosure Commn v. Washington Educ Assoc (Washington 03/16/2006) (6-3) Majority opinion Dissenting opinion) that this requirement is a violation of the 1st amendment.
My view:
I think the Washington court was wrong. To the extent that unions have 1st amendment rights of their own, the states probably have the power give individuals added rights that impair the union's rights somewhat. I thought the Washington court exaggerated the burden on the union….

Favorite Quotes 2

2007-01-22T13:46:00.000-08:00

More goodness from the oral arguments transcript:

JUSTICE KENNEDY: You want us to consider this case as if the First Amendment rights of non-union members were not involved? (WEA attorney John West)
MR. WEST: Absolutely -- absolutely not, Justice Kennedy. We recognize -
JUSTICE KENNEDY: But that's been your whole argument so far.
MR. WEST: Absolutely not. I'm sorry, Justice Kennedy, but that's certainly not what I intend to be saying. We recognize that the non-members have First Amendment rights. We also recognize that those rights are protected by the Hudson procedures which the union uses. The non-members have the absolute right to prevent the use of their funds not only for this kind of electoral speech but for any kind of political ideological speech and other nonchargeable activities with which they disagree simply by sending in a letter.
JUSTICE STEVENS: So it's a First Amendment right that is waived by failing to make a timely objection.
MR. WEST: Well, it's not that a right is waived. What it is -
JUSTICE STEVENS: It's gone under your theory. P38-39

JUSTICE ALITO: Explain to me the thinking of somebody who chooses not to join, the 5 percent who choose not to join, and yet they would like to make this contribution. Now maybe there's some, but what would be the thinking of such a person? P 40

JUSTICE ALITO: I still don't understand the thinking of these hypothetical people. If I'm a union member, I get various benefits. If I choose not to be a union member, I don't get those benefits. Why would I choose to give up the benefits of union membership and yet want to allow the union to spend my money for its political purposes? P 42

The union never provided a good answer to Justice Alito's question. Maybe the union should write a book about their difficulties.

Belaboring minority rights

2007-01-19T08:55:00.000-08:00

An editorial from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

A case argued before the U.S. Supreme Court last week could rewrite labor law and redefine minority rights for the smallest minority on Earth....

"We are very comfortable saying there is a strong likelihood the court will uphold the law," says Michael Reitz, legal counsel of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, a nonpartisan free-market think tank in Washington state. The case originated in 2000 when the foundation filed a complaint against the union on behalf of nonmember teachers. He expects a decision by June.

Favorite Quotes 1

2007-01-18T11:25:00.000-08:00

Oral arguments had some sweet questions/comments by the Justices (transcripts available here). If you haven't taken a look, it's well worth your time.

Here are some of my favorites:

JUSTICE KENNEDY: And absent some direction that we have to consider this as only being for a, for purposes of election transparency, it seems to me that Washington acted quite properly in saying we will use this mechanism in order to protect our workers' First Amendment constitutional rights. P 25

JUSTICE SOUTER: And you're saying (Editor's note: referring to WEA attorney John West), first you said well, segregating the funds does not answer the problem. And I thought the reason it didn't answer the problem was that the, that it was, that the purposes of the, of the act were underinclusive. And now you're responding to Justice Ginsburg by going back to making the assumption that the segregated funds would be the union's funds. P 29-30

JUSTICE SCALIA: Here is the Government acting as a coercer. It's because of the Government that you're allowed to get this money from these non-union members.
(WEA attorney) MR. WEST: Well, I don't believe the Court has ever put it quite that way in the Government speech cases, the Government funding cases. P 31-32

JUSTICE STEVENS: Could you just tell me yes or no, and then explain?
MR. WEST: Certainly. Well, the answer is yes and no. The answer is, if you're talking about - (Laughter.) P 33

If you have any favorite lines, feel free to post them. I'll have more later.

Note: This is not an attempt to provide stunning legal commentary, for that see fine posts by Ryan here and here.

Union striking out in court?

2007-01-18T10:48:00.000-08:00

A hard-hitting article from the Columbian's Elizabeth Hovde:

"...But thanks to state attorney generals past and present, along with several determined teachers and right-to-work organizations, the question is now before the U.S. Supreme Court. Early surmise says individual teachers will win this round, not the union....
...(T)he Legislature and the WEA should be motivated to end the legal wrangling once and for all by making union dues optional in Washington state. No one should be required to pay a union to work as a school employee. It's undemocratic. With optional unionism, the WEA would have more freedom over how it spends its dollars. And if the union is as valuable to school employees as it boasts, it won't have any trouble getting people to sign up. It could lobby for all the campaigns and candidates it wanted without ever being accused of hijacking employees' wages for off-base political purposes."

Photo Gallery 3

2007-01-16T14:30:00.000-08:00

D.C. was a great place to visit, and being a part of this Supreme Court case was an honor. I've been sick the past few days, but wanted to share some pictures from the trip.

From Kristen's camera:
We actually saw cherry blossoms in January!

The Supreme Court (with Labor Policy Analyst Ryan Bedford on the steps).

Labor Policy Director Mike Reitz, NWPE Executive Director Cindy Omlin, and the aforementioned Ryan Bedford on the steps of the Supreme Court.

A fun picture Ryan took of me.

As teacher Jeff Leer said, "If 'equal justice under the law' is really what the court is all about, then we win!"

About thirty of our teachers went on a tour of the Capitol after the Supreme Court hearing on Wednesday. The Capitol rotunda, in which several deceased presidents (Abraham Lincoln was the first, and Gerald Ford the most recent) and great persons have laid in state.

The view of the Washington Monument from the Capitol steps.

Many of the teachers (myself included) also took time to see other monuments (such as the Lincoln Memorial, World War II Memorial, and Vietnam Memorial) while we were in our nation's capitol.

Justice Alito: "Define Voter Intent"

2007-01-16T13:42:00.000-08:00

Early in the proceedings, a dispute arose in which Justice Alito questioned how the Washington State Supreme Court could determine the voter’s intent when they passed I-134.

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, how can the State Supreme Court determine what is the
purpose, the intent, of the ballot initiative?
MR. MCKENNA: I'm not certain, Your Honor. They referred to the-
JUSTICE ALITO: A lot of people voted for it.
MR. MCKENNA: Right.
JUSTICE ALITO: But is the State Supreme Court in a position to determine why they voted for it?
MR. MCKENNA: They simply hold, Your Honor, in their opinion that this is what the voters intended.
JUSTICE ALITO: How do they know that?
MR. MCKENNA: I don't know how they know it, Your Honor.

The question posed to Attorney General McKenna required him to perform a difficult task; explain, from a legal and logical standpoint, a political ideal that six justices haphazardly stuffed into a legal opinion. Consider also that the majority waited until one of their number retired and then gave her the task of writing the opinion. Why didn’t one of the five currently sitting justices in the majority write the opinion? Were they afraid of voter backlash?

Regardless, the answer to Justice Alito’s question is simple. The first part of the answer, he gave himself, “A lot of people voted for it.” In the case of I-134 an overwhelming 72 percent of voters approved it.

What then, did voters vote for? In this case, we must refer to the “Intent” language of the initiative.

PART I
Findings and Intent

NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. INTENT. By
limiting campaign contributions, the people intend to:
(1) Ensure that individuals and interest groups have fair and equal opportunity to influence elective and governmental processes;
(2) Reduce the influence of large organizational contributors; and
(3) Restore public trust in governmental institutions and the electoral process.

Sec.2.(1) says it all and, as applied to this case, implies that Washington state voters intended to give individuals a fair and equal opportunity to influence elections. This naturally includes protecting their First Amendment rights by prohibiting them from being forced to contribute, or not contribute, to candidates and causes they disagree with.

The Washington State Supreme Court is often called upon to interpret voter intent, but little re-interpretation is needed when the initiative specifically included intent language.

Caption Contest

2007-01-15T17:07:00.000-08:00

This is my favorite picture so far...although I think we have a few hundred left to go through.

WA state Attorney General Rob McKenna has just come from oral arguments and is preparing to speak at our press conference. He is surrounded by some of the teachers whose First Amendment rights he has just defended from the WEA.

Any caption ideas? Below, I've included some I just came up with, but I know there are genius caption-making people reading this blog. Amuse us or make fun of the ones I came up with.

I'll even send the writer of the best caption a T-shirt based on this cartoon. Rest assured it's pretty rockin.

With those gloves on, I personally think AG Rob McKenna looks ready to defend the First Amendment rights of teachers against the union, without waiting for the Court's ruling.

With those gloves on, I think AG Rob McKenna may have told the WEA attorneys to meet him by the flagpole after oral arguments.

Does AG Rob McKenna look like a boxer right here, or is it just me?

Don’t make him take the gloves off.

Rest assured, the gloves came off in the courtroom.

Photo Gallery 2

2007-01-15T16:13:00.000-08:00

As promised, here's Round 2 of pictures...

EFF Communications guru Booker T. Stallworth, Joe Lehman (from the Mackinac Center), EFF CEO Lynn Harsh, and Davenport attorney Steve O'Ban discuss.

A teacher asks a question at our night before the case meeting.

And there was much discussion.

So we went to the airport to get video footage of the arriving teachers (which I accidentally recorded over later - but don't tell my boss), so all we really got was this lousy photo.

We also went to the Lincoln memorial on Tuesday night (the day before the case) for a segment that will be included on the outtakes of our DVD and we also got to see how gorgeous D.C. is at night.
Teacher Gordon Kenney walks down the Supreme Court steps after the conclusion of oral arguments.

Lynn and teacher Jeff Leer. In black and white, because we can.

Many thanks to the teachers who gave up their time to let the Court know it needs to defend the Free Speech Rights of All Workers.

Statue outside the Supreme Court. I think it's Lady Justice.

EFF President Bob Williams explains EFF's role in the case to the media.

We did not just gather for our own amusement. Camera crews know the power of pictures.

EFF Policy Analyst and Chief Organizer Kristen Mercier. The person most responsible for coordinating the arrival and accommodations of 40+ attending teachers.

God bless the Red, White, and Blue and the 1st Amendment rights of individuals it protects

With those gloves on, I think AG Rob McKenna may have told the WEA attorneys to meet him by the flagpole after oral arguments.

Former National Teacher of the Year Tracey Bailey in the court plaza.

It's all in the sign.

Kristen asks teachers for their reactions to the arguments.

Bob and Cindy Omlin, the Executive Director of Northwest Professional Educators head down a Heritage hallway to do a media conference call.

Editorial support

2007-01-13T08:07:00.000-08:00

Two in-state editorials support Attorney General McKenna and the rights of non-union teachers. Excerpts below.

Seattle Times Editorial
For dissident teachers, the right to limit dues

"In the Washington Education Association case argued Wednesday at the U.S. Supreme Court, most of the justices seemed to side with Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna, who was representing the rights of the dissident teachers. So do we.

"The case has been portrayed as an attack on unions. It really is not. It has no effect on any union's right to spend its members' money on politics. It is only about nonmembers' money.

"If the union wants to ask nonmembers to donate to a cause, it should be free to do so — but it should not complain that having to ask is an unfair burden, or that it limits its freedom of speech."

The Spokesman-Review takes on the union's self-applied label as a "professional organization" and blasted it for thuggish behavior.

Spokesman-Review Editorial
Dues and don'ts: Union should ask nonmembers before spending
"As recently as the 1970s, leaders of Washington's largest teachers union disputed that label, and members recoiled from it. The Washington Education Association considered itself a professional organization, devoted to instructional quality. A union? No way.

"But times have changed, and nobody would practice that artifice today, not with a straight face. WEA is clearly a union, and its aggressive use of nonmembers' dues for
political causes has come before the U.S. Supreme Court.

"'The state of Washington's position is that nonmembers should not be required to say no twice,' McKenna told the justices during oral arguments.

"That's reasonable. If WEA wants the political use of money from people who don't want to be part of WEA, it's only fair to expect the organization to get permission in advance. If that's too burdensome for WEA, WEA should be willing to do without.

"That's how a professional organization would act."

The Washington Times
Restore workers' constitutional rights

"Despite the fact that 43 percent of voters from union households cast their ballots for President Bush in 2004 (according to a national exit poll commissioned by the Los Angeles Times), labor unions have routinely directed more than 90 percent of their political expenditures to the candidates and causes of the Democratic Party. Of course that's outrageous. However, what has been happening in the state of Washington is even more outrageous. So much, in fact, that the Supreme Court of Washington state has turned the First Amendment upside-down.

"The U.S. Supreme Court should restore the constitutional rights of nonmembers by overturning the Washington Supreme Court, thereby requiring unions to obtain permission from nonmembers before their fees can be used to finance causes they likely oppose."

ALERT: C-SPAN

2007-01-13T07:59:00.000-08:00

The cases will be discussed on C-SPAN today.

ON AMERICA & THE COURTS
Washington v. Washington Ed. Assn. The Supreme Court hears oral argument in Washington v. Washington Education Association. The Court will decide if states can require labor organizations to ask non-union employees permission to use fees paid to the union on political activities.

Tune in to C-SPAN or visit c-span.org at 7PM ET/4PM PT.

Justice Ginsburg: Empirical evidence on why teachers don't join unions

2007-01-12T14:45:00.000-08:00

At one point during oral arguments, Justice Ginsburg asked WEA attorney John West, “Is this all hypothetical, Mr. West, or is there any empirical evidence about what the people who are non-union members, if they had their druthers, would they say not a penny more goes into the union till than we are forced to put there? Is there any empirical evidence that divides up the universe of people who don't, deliberately don't join unions?”

Mr. West responded, “No. Justice Ginsburg, there's a lot of speculation on both sides. I don't think there's any empirical evidence, but there is plenty of reason to think that there are many reasons that people choose not to join the union, whether from a free rider motivation, whether from just not being a joiner, any variety of reasons. Some of them may be….” At which point, Chief Justice Roberts interrupted. Oral Transcripts, page 42-43.

Upon hearing Justice Ginsburg’s question, I wondered whether she or Mr. West had taken note of page 14 of EFF’s amicus brief where we give evidence that, when given a choice, teachers generally choose not to contribute to union PAC’s. On page 14, Justice Ginsburg can read the following:

"The enactment of the Fair Campaign Practices Act forced the WEA to stop requiring a member donation to the WEA-PAC unless the union first received affirmative consent to the donation from the member. Prior to the enactment of the law, approximately 82% of the WEA membership donated to the WEA-PAC and only 18% affirmatively opted out. Opting out required an affirmative action by the union member, causing that member to stand out from his or her colleagues, potentially bringing unwanted attention and pressures to the member. However, after removing the pressures imposed by the opt-out system, member participation in the WEA-PAC dropped to between 11% and 18%."

"Such results are not unique to Washington. After enacting similar laws, member participation in PACs in Utah fell from 68% to 7%,31 and participation in Idaho fell by 75%.32 When informed of their right to opt-out of union political contributions, the number of members opting out in Colorado increased four-fold."

"Thus even those who elected to become union members, who can reasonably be presumed to share many of the WEA s political views (at least more so than those who opted not to join), when given a choice free of the coercion and exposure endemic to the opt-out system, chose not to support the political activities of the WEA."

While this evidence is not directly on point to her question, Justice Ginsburg can clearly see that teachers, when given a choice, do not contribute to union PAC's. She should also consider that, even in states where teachers are not forced to pay dues (Utah and Idaho are Right to Work states) and are thus 100 percent voluntary members, teachers overwhelmingly choose to opt out of union political spending.

Justice Ginsburg can interpret the massive trend to opt out of union PAC contributions as one of two things: Either 1) teachers, by and large, do not support union politics, or 2) the majority of teachers say, as Justice Ginsburg put it, "[N]ot a penny more goes into the union till than we are forced to put there."

However, one interpretation is more likely than the other. Given the fact that 80 to 95 percent of teachers choose to opt out of PAC spending, but only a small percentage choose to resign from their union and become agency fee payers, we can assume that the "first" option is the case; that teachers, by and large, do not support union politics.

CAVEAT: This analysis does not take into effect the efforts of some unions to bully teachers into remaining full dues-paying members instead of becoming agency fee payers. Teachers report that some union officials use confrontational techniques and play on fears of legal liability by threatening to remove them from legal insurance policies provided by the union. These activities, in part, prevent some teachers from opting out as agency fee payers.