RSS 2.0 FeedSupreme Court Hears Oral Argument In Washington Free Speech Case
by Doug MataconisOn Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in a case involving the teachers union for the State of Washington and its challenge to a law that required the union to return money to union members who didn’t want their dues used for political purposes unrelated to collective bargaining.
The Washington Supreme Court struck down the law, but from the reports of the argument, it looks like the Supreme Court is inclined to uphold it:
WASHINGTON — Supreme Court justices indicated Wednesday they are inclined to uphold a Washington state law restricting unions from using workers’ fees for political activities.
The case involves a few thousand teachers and other education employees who are in the bargaining unit and thus represented by the more than 70,000-member Washington Education Association _ but who have chosen not to join the union.
Workers can’t be forced to join or pay for the union’s political activism, the court has ruled, but they can be charged a fee for labor negotiations that affect them.
The fees average $700 a year, union president Charles Hasse said. About 75 percent of the total goes to the costs of collective bargaining. Of the remaining 25 percent, just $10 to $25 a year is covered by the state law that the union has challenged.
The narrow issue before the justices is whether, as Washington law prescribed, employees must opt in, or affirmatively consent, to having some of their money used in election campaigns.
The Washington Supreme Court struck down the law, saying the union’s offer to reduce fees for any nonmember who registers an objection to the political spending was sufficient. The state court said the restriction was an impermissible burden on the union’s constitutional rights.
But several justices said Wednesday that the law did not strike them as burdensome.
“States have considerable discretion in determining how to protect First Amendment constitutional rights. It seems to me Washington acted quite properly,” Justice Anthony Kennedy said, reflecting a view seemingly shared by at least five other justices.
(…)
Justice Samuel Alito was the most aggressive questioner in this area. “Why should the First Amendment permit anything other than an opt-in scheme?” Alito asked.
Excellent question Justice Alito. A defeat for the union here would be a clear victory for the free speech rights of union members everywhere who are required to be part of a union but who object to seeing their union dues used to fund political activities that they disagree with.
Related Post:
Teacher’s Unions: Enemies Of Free Speech
“The state court said the restriction was an impermissible burden on the union’s constitutional rights.”
I thought that unions were granted powers, not rights, similar to corporations when they are chartered or given such autonomy through legislative fiat in contrast with rights which are inherent, as provided under the constitution. Powers and rights are not the same, rights are God given while powers are assigned by men and therefore expanded or retracted through government authority.
Comment by T F Stern — January 11, 2007 @ 5:32 am