NEW YORK, NY Jan. 12 (DPI) — The Supreme Court is reviewing a case with major implications for the nation’s public-sector unions, and reader comment boards reflect an intense divide – as well as some organized and strategic pro-union posting on major news sites. Of 1,300 comments attached to yesterday’s news item the initial wave howled about the “absurdity” of the plaintiffs, a small group of California teachers, claiming violation of their First Amendment free speech rights when forced to pay union dues to the California Teachers Association, the most powerful lobby in Sacramento. Their suit, now before the Supreme Court, seeks to end the compulsory payment of dues to the teachers union.
A subsequent wave of comments seemed to challenge the supporters of public-sector unions. Such groups are extremely powerful in the state houses of not only California but New York, New Jersey and Illinois, among others. The back-and-forth among readers on comment boards underscored the high stakes.
Among some of the anti-public sector union comments, not the highest recommended:
Every year the California Teachers Association is the largest political contributor in California, in some years outspending the top 5 corporate contributors combined. A quote from the Santa Cruz Sentinel:
“The CTA has become a force in Sacramento by pouring millions into influencing ballot measures and electing lawmakers, then millions more lobbying legislators after they take office. The union’s formidable political operation — spending about $200 million on campaigns and lobbying in the last 15 years — is funded by roughly 300,000 classroom teachers who pay approximately $1,000 each in annual union dues.”
One cannot argue that the California Teachers Association is not a vast political machine. Even if they lose this case and see their dues cut by 1/2, they will remain one of the top three political donors in California.We should applaud the end of unionization in the public sector. That such a thing exists, an organization of bureaucrats whose sole purpose is to thwart the will of the voters, is an affront to civil decency and democracy.
It is inherently dishonest when one does not differentiate between public and private sector unions. The article makes clear that a portion of union dues are used for political campaign advocacy, to wit putting the very people in office with whom they will have to negotiate. This has no relation to private sector collective bargaining, and is in fact inherently corrupt. It should be outlawed, but barring that, elected taxpayer representatives should be involved in the negotiations.
Most of the comments here are completely wrong-headed. Public-sector unions don’t stand up for workers against wealthy capitalists: they extort money from all taxpayers for their members. This case is all about public-sector unions.
From a WSJ.com reader:
Taxpayers pay teacher’s salaries. Teacher’s unions collect dues from teachers. Teacher’s unions contribute to Democrats and their causes. Democrats support teacher’s unions. It’s the circle of life.