High-court ruling may set stage for more antiunion battles
Justices uphold a state law that limits unions' use of nonmembers' dues.
from the June 15, 2007 edition
Page 2 of 3
The fee issue arose because by law, all teachers in Washington State must be represented by the union for contract and other collective-bargaining issues. As a result, all teachers – even those who choose not to join the union – must agree to have their paycheck deducted by the equivalent of union dues.
The mandatory deduction means the union compiles a pool of funds from nonmembers. The law allows the union to use a portion of the funds for politics, but union leaders must obtain permission.
The WEA had adopted an opt-out system, obtaining permission from nonmembers by sending them a thick packet of information twice a year. If the nonmembers objected to the use of their fees for politics, they could opt out by writing a letter notifying the union that they objected. The political portion of their fees would be refunded. If the union did not receive the returned form, union officials interpreted that as consent to use the fees for politics. Consent was assumed even in cases where the letter might have been lost in the mail or the nonmember simply forgot to write or mail it.
In contrast, the 1992 state law mandated that labor leaders use an opt-in system, requiring the union to obtain affirmative permission from nonmembers before the union could use the fees for politics. If no permission was received, the union was supposed to return that portion of the fees to nonmembers.
The Washington Supreme Court struck down the 1992 campaign-finance law as an unconstitutional infringement of the WEA's First Amendment rights to engage in political activities without government interference.
On Thursday, the US Supreme Court reversed that decision, saying that the law did not violate the union's First Amendment rights.
RSS feed
