BREAKING: Supreme Court to Hear ‘Paycheck Deception’ Case

[Omaha Steve]

http://blog.aflcio.org/2006/09/27/breaking-supreme-court-to-hear-%e2%80%98paycheck-deception%e2%80%99-case/

BREAKING: Supreme Court to Hear ‘Paycheck Deception’ Case

by Donna Jablonski, Sep 27, 2006

In its new term that begins next week, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of anti-union “paycheck deception” measures aimed at silencing workers’ voice in politics—one of only nine cases the court has decided to hear of 2,000 submitted for review.

Many workers who do not belong to the union at their workplace pay “agency fees” to the union to cover the costs of representing them. Courts have ruled these nonmembers have the right to a refund of any portion of their payments spent on political activity with which they do not agree. The New York Times reports the Supreme Court will examine a measure adopted in Washington State in 1992, requiring unions to get permission in advance from each nonmember for funds to be used for political activities. Washington’s Supreme Court, according to the Times, declared the measure unconstitutional, saying it imposed an “extremely costly” and “significant” burden on a labor union’s political activities. The U.S. Supreme court has consolidated two appeals of that ruling, one by the state and another brought by the virulently anti-union National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

As the Times reports:

From the labor unions’ point of view, the difference between permitting non-members to “opt out” and requiring them to “opt in” is substantial. They argue that it is burdensome to have to seek permission from non-members, and that non-members who do not exercise their “opt out” rights should be seen as acquiescing in the expenditures.

The Times says the court will hear arguments in the case in December and January.

E-Mail This Article | Digg it

Tags: paycheck deception, union dues, U.S. Supreme Court, union political activity
Channels: Organizing & Bargaining

[aquart]

1. "Paycheck deception" is the Republican terminology, I take it?

Because the term itself is amazingly deceptive, isn't it?

[pinerow]

2. If people don't want to join a union, for whatever reasons,

they should not partake in any hard fought benefits won by unions...be careful what you wish for...ya might get it...:wtf:

[LiberalFighter]

3. They want the good wages but don't want to make the sacrifices

If they think unions are bad then they shouldn't apply for any jobs that are union!

I would be in favor of employees that don't want the benefits of union negotiated wages and benefits to only be paid what the company would prefer to pay them.


As it is now... members can opt-out once a year and they are notified well in advance about the procedure.