Supreme Court to Consider Whether States Can Cripple Union Free Speech Rights
Is is constitutional for state governments to cripple the First Amendment rights of union members to raise money to participate in the political process?
That is the question that the United States Supreme Court will address this term in reviewing a case from the Washington Supreme Court, Washington v. Wash. Edu. Assoc. (combined with a parallel case)
Back in 1986, the US Supreme Court decided that employees benefitting from a union contract had a right to request and receive a refund of the portion of "agency fees" paid to the union that went to political activities. However, in 1992, voters in the state of Washington approved a law that went further and stated, a bit ambiguously, that no political funds could be collected "unless affirmatively authorized" by each individual.
The Washington Supreme Court struck down this rule as unconstitutional, since the procedure mandated by the state for enforcing the individual authorization procedure would be "extremely costly", thereby draining funds from union members and undermining their First Amendment rights. The US Supreme Court has stated that "the majority also has an interest in stating its views without being silenced by the dissenters," so the state imposing costly bureaucratic mandates on a union should be seen as itself a denial of free speech by the vast majority of union members who support a union's political activities.
Whatever the final resolution of the legal dispute -- and the consistently anti-union positions of the US Supreme Court in recent years does not bode well for protecting union members' free speech rights -- the decision by the Washington Supreme Court does emphasize the injustice of states imposing bureaucratic mandates like "paycheck protection" to cripple union member participation in the political process.
Notably, large corporations spend billions of dollars in politics without dissenting shareholders having ANY right to protest their money being used to undermine labor, consumer and environmental laws. Yet the rightwing activists who campaign for the bureaucratic crippling of union participation in politics are silent on that pervasive corporate corruption of the political process -- highlighting that despite the rhetoric, this whole campaign is not about solicitation for the rights of non-union workers but merely uses those workers as tools to serve the corporate interests that fund the anti-union network of groups that promote these kinds of laws and lawsuits.
As an anachronism, a union member, I note that the trend is to grant more of the privileges of personhood to corporations, and less personhood to individual persons.
Guilds and trade associations have been around for ages, but only after Marxism have unions been painted as somehow evil or unnatural. I am a non-mythical little guy whose only bargaining power is associating with other skilled workers.
Now we see the outcome of failing to stand on principle and filibuster against Alito or Roberts. They will now rule against unions, no doubt, as they will rule against future cases undercut by the new torture bill.
September 28, 2006 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't it about time for the Union movement to incorporate themselves in each and every state? It would a least put them under the rules that prevail against them. Then the national AFL-CIO would become a trade association/PAC.
September 28, 2006 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Appalling on so many levels, not the least of which is the apparent lack of interest or concern here on this board.
Ah well. Its not my job to be the conscience. It doesn't pay enough, and it only confuses the unconscious and annoys the unconsciounable.
But I would point out that the existence of an entire movement to strip unions of voice and rights is probably not a good thing for society at all. Indeed, in other circumstances it would amount to a criminal conspiracy.
Where go the least of you, there go you all.
September 28, 2006 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry guys; there may be another reason for the lack of posting. I am completely in favor of unions, but I cannot for one second favor taking someone's money against their will, using it to fund speech they don't believe in, and claiming that my right to free speech overrides another's. Compelled speech is for dictatorships, not democracies.
I'm a bit disappointed in the headline for this post, too. Another way to frame the current issue is: "Now that we have collected money from you, and we're going to use it to fund speech which you disagree with, it would be so hard to have to figure it out all out and actually give your own money back to you, just to protect your pesky little individual 1st Amendment rights." Tom Wright's comment above actually applies here: why should the union, a group of people, an organization, and not a person itself, have its free speech rights supercede those of an actual person?
What it boils down to is that the very real and very pressing need for a union and its activities does not justify the suppression of citizens' First Amendment freedoms.
September 28, 2006 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
As noted, individuals in union shops have the complete right to request money used from their fees back as a refund. There is a standard process for this refund system (called the Hudson process after the relevant Supreme Court case).
The issue here is whether a state can create a system so burdensome and expensive that those who WANT to give money to the union see most of their dues wasted in the collection process. Creating that burdensome system is what the Washington Supreme Court objected to as a violation of union members' free speech rights.
September 28, 2006 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
So then, you figure that Shareholders in Corporations should have a right to veto public statements and contributions of those corporations which they have a disagreement with?
Tell me right now. I'll go get myself a share of Fox News and make some changes.
No offence, I appreciate the support for Unions, but I don't think you understand Unions at all.
Or Free Speech. No offence, though.
On edit: I have some concern that you might take the free speech comment more harshly than it was meant. So I'll explain it a little more.
A Union is a representative entity organized around a workplace.
For instance, there are representative entities organized geographically... Senate seats, House Seats, Municipalities. There are representative bodies organized along issue lines, like the NRA. There's economic representative bodies, corporations, chambers of commerce, business lobbyists. There's religious ones, churches of every sort. There's all sorts of representative bodies, and often they have more functions than simply representing. But representation is a key function.
The job of a representative body, as I said, is to 'represent.'
Now, there's a quandary there, because obviously, no representative body can represent each and every opinion of its member, no matter how its organized. I dunno, maybe the Moonies, maybe Dobson's or Falwell's wacky churches claim to represent every single opinion of their congregations. I doubt it.
But the point is that these representative bodies, unions included, are obliged to take the bigger view, to represent as best they can, the best interests or the majority opinions of their constituencies, sometimes both, sometimes one or the other.
But just the fact that you're a minority opinion in a constituency, that don't impair your right to free speech.
The fact that a body of which you are a part, through its leaders or representatives, expresses an opinion that you don't like, is not a violation of your rights.
And you don't have much say in it. It's not like when Charlton Heston mouths off and says something stupid, you can demand a dollar of you NRA dues back, or that you can refuse a portion of your NRA dues as a selective approval of its position.
It's not like you are entitled to decline to pay some of your taxes because your Senator voted in a way you didn't like.
Anyway, this is sort of baby talk. Sorry about that, but you didn't seem to be getting it.
Now, onto free speech: Basically, you have a right to swing a fist. But it stops before it hits my nose.
A representative body is obliged to represent, it exists to represent and take positions on behalf of its members, even if that is not the position of the individual member.
That's just reality. Get over it.
The fact that a representative body says something that you disagree with is not an infringement on your freedom of speech. That just don't hold water.
Your freedom of speech is still there. You can speak all you want. You can holler if you like.
Thus endeth the lesson. Go forth and boob no more.
September 28, 2006 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
To join with MN let me point out that you cannot opt out of particular taxes, cannot opt out of corporate money spent on politics or misleading advertising, cannot reduce your mortgage because the bank supports politics you oppose, etc.
But unions have to meet a much higher standard.
September 28, 2006 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink