Union argues that Indiana right-to-work law infringes on free, er, subsidized speech

posted at 9:16 am on April 10, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Give the Union of Operating Engineers full marks for creativity — and perhaps an even higher grade for unintended transparency.  The Indiana union has filed suit to block the state’s new right-to-work law, claiming that making dues payments voluntary rather than a requirement for working in a union shop infringes on their First Amendment right to free speech.  How?  Why, it cuts their funding for free speech:

Indiana’s new right-to-work law should be struck down because it infringes upon unions’ free speech rights by depriving them of the dues that fund their political speech, attorneys for a union challenging the law contend, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s so-called Citizens United ruling that eased restrictions on corporate campaign spending.

Attorneys for the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150 argue in a court brief that Indiana’s new law, which allows workers to not pay union dues even if a union bargains on their behalf, interferes with the union’s free speech rights and “impinges on this fundamental right of union membership.” …

“In this case, the state of Indiana restricted a channel of speech-supporting finance,” the union brief maintains. “The Union legitimately utilizes dues money collected through the agency shop provisions in its collective bargaining agreements, in part, to finance political speech The Indiana Right to Work law prohibits agency shop agreements, and that prohibition restricts a channel through which speech-supporting finance might flow.”

Well, then the union infringed on my free speech by never advertising on Captain’s Quarters back in the day!  See how this works?  Free speech, according to this view, depends on funding.  What’s next?  A government mandate to buy a newspaper subscription?  After all, if you don’t get a dead tree delivered to your doorstep each day, you may be infringing on a newspaper’s rights to free speech and liberal editorial policies!  (Wait — maybe I shouldn’t give this administration any more ideas on mandates …)

Here’s an in interesting question to pose in response to this argument.  Even if one accepted for argument’s sake that the First Amendment guarantees an income stream to fund whatever speech one wants to make, what about the employee’s right to free association, which is implied in the First Amendment’s right to peaceable assembly, as noted in a number of Supreme Court cases?  Some employees may not want to associate with the union and participate in their speech; why should they be forced into an association with them?  It seems to me that this would be a stronger argument than the “free speech requires an income stream” argument.

We’ve noted this a number of times when people mistake private editorial choices for infringement of the right to free speech.  The right to free speech does not include the right to publication, or of revenue either resulting from or in service to that speech.  The act of refusing to join does not keep the union from expressing itself.  It just means that they may not have access to the best platforms from which to deliver that speech, which puts them in the same boat as everyone else.  Perhaps they should spend more time convincing people to support them voluntarily than in getting courts to forcibly extract cash from workers in order to pursue their own political purposes.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Liberalism is truely a disease.

Bevan on April 10, 2012 at 9:18 AM

If they don’t get their way…they’ll beat you up!

KOOLAID2 on April 10, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Obama thugs…

PatriotRider on April 10, 2012 at 9:19 AM

This story should have had the Picard/Riker double facepalm picture.

ElectricPhase on April 10, 2012 at 9:20 AM

I didn’t realize a union had free speech? I thought it was the people who were working in a union who had free speech, not the union itself.

But heck, when I was in a union, they sure didn’t ask me about my free speech and sent my hard earned union dues to the freaking liberals.

upinak on April 10, 2012 at 9:20 AM

O_o

Man, the flexibility required to make that argument would make Elastigirl green with envy.

Bishop on April 10, 2012 at 9:20 AM

Well, then the union infringed on my free speech by never advertising on Captain’s Quarters back in the day! See how this works? Free speech, according to this view, depends on funding. What’s next? A government mandate to buy a newspaper subscription?

Every day, the Left proves itself to be irrational and dishonest. I’ve exhausted my vocabulary attempting to address each of their desperate if not outrageously manipulative distortions of reason.

I can’t imagine anything except crime by unions making this plan of theirs into any “law” that any sane, reasonable person would or could ever vote for.

Lourdes on April 10, 2012 at 9:20 AM

Perhaps unions will now start demanding money that talks. Paper and coins with little speakers on them that announce the currency’s “views” when they’re “expressed” from one hand to another.

Lourdes on April 10, 2012 at 9:22 AM

Here in Toledo there is a IUOE office. When President Reagan died, everyone respectfully lowered their flags to half-staff. Except for these folks.

rbj on April 10, 2012 at 9:22 AM

If they don’t get their way…they’ll beat you up!

KOOLAID2 on April 10, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Hahaha…

Lourdes on April 10, 2012 at 9:23 AM

Wait. Is it a right, or a fundamental right? The word “comprehensive” should be in there too, I would think.

BKeyser on April 10, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Desperate morons.

Without mandatory dues collection before the paycheck gets to the worker, their cash flow is seriously diminished. They can’t convince their own membership that the services they provide is worth the dues they charge.

novaculus on April 10, 2012 at 9:26 AM

There are judges who will buy this argument.

forest on April 10, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Speech therapy via the baseball bat.

Yoop on April 10, 2012 at 9:27 AM

If only the Constitution had been written in Latin… libre, not gratis.

Mr. Prodigy on April 10, 2012 at 9:33 AM

The unions will now start charging $1 per spoken word from all their members.

Damn…you really have to wonder if maybe the dinosaurs smiled as the asteroid hit, knowing that the puny little hominids running around the forest floor would eventually screw everything up.

Bishop on April 10, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Wow, it really must suck to be the lawyers for these unions. This is one of the lamest arguments I’ve ever seen.

AZCoyote on April 10, 2012 at 9:33 AM

This is no joke. The union gangsters are coming to a town near you. Ha!! They may already be there.

People who live on an intellectual Sesame Street need to wake up!!! This is not politics as usual!!

NickDeringer on April 10, 2012 at 9:34 AM

Perhaps they should sue their own members for not voluntarily offering their dues, since that is where the money is supposed to come from.

OldEnglish on April 10, 2012 at 9:34 AM

As HL Mencken said: “Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one”.

TKindred on April 10, 2012 at 9:34 AM

Their free speech means contributions to Democrat politicians who act as their enforcement muscle in return for cash.

NeoKong on April 10, 2012 at 9:35 AM

I have no duty to pay for your rights, nitwits.

Akzed on April 10, 2012 at 9:36 AM

And this is why lawyers should all be lined up and shot. It’s a sign of serious mental illness to think like this. Unfortunately, their illness has the tendency to spread to other.

BierManVA on April 10, 2012 at 9:36 AM

Union dues are like payroll tax deductions, you never really miss it if you never really touch it, but once you touch it, it’s a lot harder to hand it over to your overlords for their Cadillacs and jet fare to union meetings…..

Tim Zank on April 10, 2012 at 9:36 AM

Incoherence.

The New Union Label. Look for it.

Bmore on April 10, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Union lawsuits: Throw enough against the wall and see what sticks.

Roy Rogers on April 10, 2012 at 9:38 AM

A court might agree, they have made far sillier rulings.

Fenris on April 10, 2012 at 9:38 AM

How much can baseball bats and brass knuckles cost anyway?

NoDonkey on April 10, 2012 at 9:38 AM

They can’t convince their own membership that the services they provide is worth the dues they charge.

novaculus on April 10, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Which just proves the unions’ point! Their message sucks, but only because they don’t have enough money to package it properly. If they can just get their hands into more members’ pockets, then they can afford higher-quality marketers for their message.

With libs, it’s always the presentation that is lacking, never the content . . . .

AZCoyote on April 10, 2012 at 9:38 AM

People who live on an intellectual Sesame Street need to wake up!!! This is not politics as usual!!

NickDeringer on April 10, 2012 at 9:34 AM

I wonder what liberals consider the snuffaluffigus (sp)?

upinak on April 10, 2012 at 9:38 AM

Another example of conseratives wanting a handout – representation and the benefits thereof without having to pay for it. Freeloaders.

plewis on April 10, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Haha, you cant make this kind of crazy up.

Imrahil on April 10, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Another example of conseratives wanting a handout – representation and the benefits thereof without having to pay for it. Freeloaders. plewis on April 10, 2012 at 9:40 AM

You should use a sarc tag or risk being thought stupid. People might think you meant this.

Akzed on April 10, 2012 at 9:44 AM

upinak said “I didn’t realize a union had free speech? I thought it was the people who were working in a union who had free speech, not the union itself.

Quote expected any moment now from somewhere in the leftosphere.

“Unions are people my friends.”

CitizenEgg on April 10, 2012 at 9:45 AM

It’s a fundamental right to buy politicians! Whaaaaaaaa!

Wethal on April 10, 2012 at 9:46 AM

Another example of conseratives wanting a handout – representation and the benefits thereof without having to pay for it. Freeloaders.

plewis on April 10, 2012 at 9:40 AM

I have a house for sale? What? You already have a place to live? Doesn’t matter, gimme my money, you freeloader!

Fenris on April 10, 2012 at 9:46 AM

Attorneys for the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150 argue in a court brief that Indiana’s new law, which allows workers to not pay union dues even if a union bargains on their behalf, interferes with the union’s free speech rights and “impinges on this fundamental right of union membership.”

Union membership is a “fundamental right?” But non-union membership apparently is not. Nobody is saying that you can’t join the union just that you don’t have to. Where is this “fundamental right” being violated? This is and always be about union revenue.

Happy Nomad on April 10, 2012 at 9:46 AM

It’s not your money anyway! It’s the government’s and the union’s money, they just let you hold it for a little while. /

search4truth on April 10, 2012 at 9:48 AM

After all, if you don’t get a dead tree delivered to your doorstep each day, you may be infringing on a newspaper’s rights to free speech and liberal editorial policies! (Wait — maybe I shouldn’t give this administration any more ideas on mandates …)

Just call it a “daily information tax” and it’s constitutional.

thirtyandseven on April 10, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Perhaps they should spend more time convincing people to support them voluntarily than in getting courts to forcibly extract EXTORT cash from workers in order to pursue their own political purposes.

FIFY Ed….

Turtle317 on April 10, 2012 at 9:50 AM

Another example of conseratives wanting a handout – representation and the benefits thereof without having to pay for it. Freeloaders.

plewis on April 10, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Oh the old “everybody has it better because of the unions” mantra. I really feel sorry for people like you. So insecure and incompetent that you think the only way your world is better is through some thug engaging in collective bargaining on your behalf.

I bet you have a drawer filled with brightly colored tee shirts from all the events you have attended at the behest of some union that doesn’t care about anything but their own financial well being. They aren’t out there making your world better, they know that the more they squeeze out of an employer the more they get from you in the form of “dues.” In fact you are nothing but a willing pawn for people far more sinister than you think.

Happy Nomad on April 10, 2012 at 9:50 AM

“Unions are people my friends.”

CitizenEgg on April 10, 2012 at 9:45 AM

BLAH! Unions made my life hell. Taking extra money, and never telling me about it until I saw my pay stubs and then saying it was taken on a vote from the Union reps, whom I never met. Making it so I would have to either leave my job to get my retirement, even if it was an emergency. Never having a POS employee fired for not doing their work, or making me do their darn job.

Oh yeah….. people. Without souls.

upinak on April 10, 2012 at 9:50 AM

I always LOL when unions point the finger at the 1% and call them greedy. The 1% ain’t got nothin’ on unions when it comes to unadulterated greed.

tdpwells on April 10, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Liberals: “Corporations aren’t people. They aren’t entitled to First Amendment rights”.

Me: Then, neither are unions.

Bitter Clinger on April 10, 2012 at 9:51 AM

TX is very non-union friendly…and even the libs here like it that way.
After living in Chicago and St.L.-both VERY pro-union areas-unions don’t scare me. Ever.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 10, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Bevan on April 10, 2012 at 9:18 AM

Michael Savage FTW!

Spliff Menendez on April 10, 2012 at 9:53 AM

upinak on April 10, 2012 at 9:50 AM

One of my first jobs as a teenager back in the day was at a grocery store, and it was my first (and last) taste of a union. Once I found out during orientation that it wasn’t voluntary, and how much they were taking, I quit.

tdpwells on April 10, 2012 at 9:54 AM

So unions don’t have the money for their messaging, but they do have money for idiotic lawsuits like this.

Bitter Clinger on April 10, 2012 at 9:54 AM

tdpwells on April 10, 2012 at 9:54 AM

AK was in a recession, and I had no choice as it was the only jobs available at the time. I wasn’t taking un-emp either. I stuck with it for 7 yrs…. but I could only take so much. I quit last may.

upinak on April 10, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Liberals: “Corporations aren’t people. They aren’t entitled to First Amendment rights”.

Me: Then, neither are unions.

Bitter Clinger on April 10, 2012 at 9:51 AM

+100000

tdpwells on April 10, 2012 at 9:57 AM

AK was in a recession, and I had no choice as it was the only jobs available at the time. I wasn’t taking un-emp either. I stuck with it for 7 yrs…. but I could only take so much. I quit last may.

upinak on April 10, 2012 at 9:56 AM

I wouldn’t have quit if I had no other options, but jobs were plentiful back then.

I try and tell everyone that I know about this: http://unionrefund.org/about.asp

tdpwells on April 10, 2012 at 10:00 AM

This union is the most radical one in Indiana. About 10 years ago they removed the local management and brought in guys from Chicago who have ran it ever since. They brought “the Chicago way” with them.

This has resulted in some signatory companies going out of business or choosing other lines of work to get away from these guys. They look at the world through a very narrow point of view (I might add they are not well educated) and do not play well with others including other trade unions. They are a notch above “thugs” in my opinion.

GADinSB on April 10, 2012 at 10:09 AM

tdpwells on April 10, 2012 at 9:54 AM

I’ve worked both as a bagger and a produce clerk in union groceries.
As I bagger I would have had to work there for TWO YEARS before I even qualified for paid holidays-let alone anything else.
Produce wasn’t much better.
@ my non-union Wally World in non-union Texas-I qualified for paid holidays after 3 months, and last month I received my first bonus.
Probably within the next few weeks-might even be this week- I’ll be getting my first year review. I’m a good associate-so I should be getting a raise. I also get 30+ hours a week-because your hours are based on seniority AND work ethic.
If I was a bagger @ Jewel-I’d be getting maybe 12 hours a week.
Unions can bite me!

annoyinglittletwerp on April 10, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Look for the Union label (in black and blue).

ghostwalker1 on April 10, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Union bullies, thugs, parasites, jackals, takers. Yep, they sure sound like liberals to me.

AttaBoyLuther on April 10, 2012 at 10:19 AM

alt:
Years ago I was a bagger at an army commissary, working for tips only. On a few really good days I would break the magic $20 level.

GaltBlvnAtty on April 10, 2012 at 10:19 AM

annoyinglittletwerp on April 10, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Good luck on your raise!

I’d suffer through a long commute for a non-union job over a union job next to my house any day of the week. I would have to be really hard up to let a union’s grubby paws get into my paycheck.

tdpwells on April 10, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Look for the Union label (in black and blue).

ghostwalker1 on April 10, 2012 at 10:17 AM

So true.

Bitter Clinger on April 10, 2012 at 10:21 AM

GaltBlvnAtty on April 10, 2012 at 10:19 AM

I always give the baggers 4-6 bucks. I know how cheap people are and when they see me (I only go once a month with mass coupons) they line up to take out the groceries. :) They appreciate the tips and I like the fact they work hard for their money. One bagger said I tipped more than the base commanders wife. Now that is just freaking sad.

upinak on April 10, 2012 at 10:22 AM

tdpwells on April 10, 2012 at 10:21 AM

TX has no state income tax either!

annoyinglittletwerp on April 10, 2012 at 10:26 AM

upinak on April 10, 2012 at 10:22 AM

In St.L. we weren’t allowed to take tips.
I actually liked that store though. The manager was a good, Mormon guy.He knew that my husband wasn’t working so he tried to make it so that I could work bagging and salad bar. The union complained and said that since salad bar paid more-they wouldn’t let him allow me to move from carts to salads.
Dean was LIVID!!!

annoyinglittletwerp on April 10, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Years ago I was a bagger at an army commissary, working for tips only. On a few really good days I would break the magic $20 level.

GaltBlvnAtty on April 10, 2012 at 10:19 AM

I hate shopping at the commissary for this very reason. Bagging is fine but I really don’t need to be helped out to the car like some invalid. But when I do go, I usually give around $5 for my two or three bags of groceries.

That being said, the system must be profitable because it is the only place I know where employees still only work for tips.

Happy Nomad on April 10, 2012 at 10:36 AM

So, since I’m not donating funds for their free speech am I denying them their right to free speech?

BobMbx on April 10, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Maybe the argument goes like this:

1. If you are in the Union, you must pay Dues.
2. if you are not in the Union, you must pay Dues.

See? It’q quite logical.

Kenosha Kid on April 10, 2012 at 10:43 AM

upinak on April 10, 2012 at 10:22 AM

My bagging was in the summer of 1965. I did pride myself on my work. Double bags always; max of 3 cartons of milk in a bag, topped with a loaf of bread so that it would not get squashed. The faster we worked the faster the fantastic register worker could work. Everyone benefitted from working hard, fast, and well. I always ran back from the parking lot with my empty carts, sometimes 3 of them.
The biggest tip I ever got was $1, from a vet who had recovered pretty well from horrific burns. He regularly came to my line.

GaltBlvnAtty on April 10, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Wow. Force me into the union, force me to pay money to “belong”, and force me to work in an environment which is toxic since nobody can do what’s best for the company if it’s “not their job”…..all in the name of free speech???

Who knew???

KMC1 on April 10, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Mouthpiece Union Thug:

“Indiana’s new right-to-work law should be struck down because it infringes upon unions’ free speech rights by depriving them of the dues that fund their political speech, …”

Them thar fat ‘n sassy good ol’ boys are literally being homo-sapiens pretzels.
(without the ‘sapiens’)

” … what about the employee’s right to free association, which is implied in the First Amendment’s right to peaceable assembly, as noted in a number of Supreme Court cases?” – Cap’n Ed

While WE know that, again, Leftist pretzel logic is supposed to rule the day. The FIRST Amendment is daily becoming an amorphous concept much like the “Commerce Clause” and the definition of obscenity:

“I know it when I see it…”
Former Justice Potter Stewart

Having worked in more than one State over the years, give me a “right-to-work” environment anytime. I’ve caught more than one sleazy slacker over time.
Here in Michigan, our RINO Governor and self-described “nerd” (Rick Snyder) has stated that there are more important issues to address at the moment. He’s correct of course given the fact that Jenny Granholm and her merry band of radical Leftists have pretty much ruined the economy here, with the help of BIG Labor of course.
(but hey, she now works for Algore at “Current TV” – :rolleyes)

And ’round and ’round it goes …
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on April 10, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Another example of conseratives wanting a handout – representation and the benefits thereof without having to pay for it. Freeloaders.

plewis on April 10, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Works both ways. What about the top performer that the company would gladly pay more for his or her work but can’t because of the greedy union? What about the productive worker that is let go during a downturn in favor of lazy and unproductive workers that have seniority? What about the productive worker pressured by the greedy-union shop steward to slow down ‘because you are making the rest of us look bad?’

I see why companies get fed up with greedy union crap and decide to send it all to China.

slickwillie2001 on April 10, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Wow.

I can only say that the lawyer that came up with this angle and had the balls to present it to a court is just amazing.

That takes a lot of… something… to say something so asinine and so stupid in a serious manner.

I can’t believe they’d risk their entire career on such a brief.

ButterflyDragon on April 10, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Is the Indiana chapter of the IBEW’s legal staff aware of Beck v CWA?. Their brief indicates that their lawyers are ignorant of this decision.

xkaydet65 on April 10, 2012 at 11:08 AM

What’s next? A government mandate to buy a newspaper subscription?

Yes, if Obamacare is upheld.

Years ago I was a bagger at an army commissary, working for tips only. On a few really good days I would break the magic $20 level.

In jr high I was a bagger in a grocery store. Most tips were 25 cents. A really big 4 cart customer might tip a dollar, which had to be split with the guy that helped with bagging. I bought my first car with those 25 cent tips.

single stack on April 10, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Another example of conseratives wanting a handout – representation and the benefits thereof without having to pay for it. Freeloaders.

plewis on April 10, 2012 at 9:40 AM

So, unions aren’t actually doing it for the sake of their fellow man or to better society. It’s all about money and power, right?

ButterflyDragon on April 10, 2012 at 11:08 AM

I can’t believe they’d risk their entire career on such a brief.

ButterflyDragon on April 10, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Laywers who live by the union, die by the union. They argue stupidity all the time. Like the lawyer in Michigan who argued that his (union) clients were innocent and should not be fired….. after a local television station filmed them smoking pot and drinking booze during their lunchtime break. Or the union-paid lawyer who defended a group of techers who were fired for job abandonment after they, in fact, left their jobs to go protest at the statehouse.

Unions see their influence dwindling. There is talk of Michigan become right-to-work (never happen) and the recall of Governor Walker in Wisc. is due to getting the state out of the business of collecting union dues for the public-sector unions. That Indiana became RTW was a crushing blow to unions and they are fighting the trend because they can’t afford to let people voluntarily join their organization because few would.

Happy Nomad on April 10, 2012 at 11:11 AM

I guess the next lawsuit will come from the Mafia. They used to collect mandatory (probably still do) fees from union members in exchange for ‘services’. I bet they used a chunk of that money for the exercise of their ‘free speech’. They loved to purchase politicians too . . .

Dawnsblood on April 10, 2012 at 11:12 AM

There should be a federal law prohibiting unions from compelling employees to join the union and fund it. It’s effectively taking money with menaces from those people may not want to associate with the union and thereby fund the Democrat Party.

CorporatePiggy on April 10, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Wait a second. I thought that union dues were paid to go to the operation of the union and that the Union PAC is the one that performed the political speech.

oconp88 on April 10, 2012 at 11:21 AM

slickwillie2001 on April 10, 2012 at 10:58 AM

What you allude to, the productive worker, is called: “rate buster” by BIG Labor and their literal thugs. Working hard actually makes all of the slackers look bad!
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on April 10, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Another example of conseratives wanting a handout – representation and the benefits thereof without having to pay for even wanting it. Freeloaders.

plewis on April 10, 2012 at 9:40 AM

FIFY.

Kenosha Kid on April 10, 2012 at 11:28 AM

single stack on April 10, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Yes, I worked as part of a team of 2 also. Even then good baggers sought out other good baggers with whom to work. Keep that register humming and we would service more customers than any other line, and get more of those 25 tips.

GaltBlvnAtty on April 10, 2012 at 11:31 AM

An expansion of a person’s choice is now a “restriction”. The state did NOT restrict anything. If the workers believe in their unions, they will pay their dues, and the funded voice of the union’s political speech will become louder. If the workers lose faith in their unions, they will not pay their dues, and the funded voice of the union’s political speech will get quieter. Since it is supposed to be the express function of a union to represent their members, this direct relationship is a matter of good order.

The union’s case, that giving members a choice is a “restriction”, is utterly without merit on its face. To mandate the payment of dues would be to not only restrict, but silence the voice of the individual, and it is the purpose of the First Amendment to ensure that the individual has a voice.

Freelancer on April 10, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Another example of conseratives wanting a handout

dentarthurdent on April 10, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Another faulty post by the web site.
2nd try.

Another example of conseratives wanting a handout – representation and the benefits thereof without having to pay for it. Freeloaders.

plewis on April 10, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Have you ever thought just maybe the conservative workers don’t want any of the union “benefits” or representation as well as not wanting to pay the union? I suppose a lib couldn’t understand something like that.

I’ve been anti-union my entire career. I know the value of my skills and work and I will negotiate with my employer on my own based on that knowledge. I don’t need or want some union thug/hack negotiating me into the same mold and pay of the slackers.

dentarthurdent on April 10, 2012 at 11:39 AM

upinak said “I didn’t realize a union had free speech? I thought it was the people who were working in a union who had free speech, not the union itself.

Quote expected any moment now from somewhere in the leftosphere.

“Unions are people my friends.”

CitizenEgg on April 10, 2012 at 9:45 AM

In all fairness, Unions are people to the same extent any other entity is. Whether or not the individual membership actually agrees with what leadership says or does isn’t the issue. they have their elections just the same as shareholders of a corporation do, and then the leadership for either “speak” on behalf of the entity.

The main difference is that nobody is forced to be a shareholder of a corporation or buy shares -whereas the vast majority of union members are forced to be union members and forced to pay dues whether they want to or not.

Monkeytoe on April 10, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Another example of conseratives wanting a handout – representation and the benefits thereof without having to pay for it. Freeloaders.

plewis on April 10, 2012 at 9:40 AM

I think this is fake. Nobody is that stupid.

The idea that unions are somehow required and that everyone must belong and pay dues? Interesting theory.

Monkeytoe on April 10, 2012 at 11:41 AM

The attorneys that filed this pile of garbage should be subject to monetary sanctions and hauled before the state bar disciplinary committee–it is the very definition of frivolous. Hopefully, the trial judge in the case will not disgrace themself by turning a blind eye to this obvious truth.

M. Scott Eiland on April 10, 2012 at 11:48 AM

interesting how they plan to square their argument with:

In 1988, the Supreme Court, in Communications Workers of America v. Beck, ruled against organized labor and held that non-union employees could not be required to pay full union dues if some of those funds were to be used for activities unrelated to collective bargaining.

Beck was pretty clear that contributions for the unions political voice are strictly voluntary. The portion of the dues for collective bargaining expenses shouldn’t be protected as 1st amendment expression since it is reimbursing a service. The Indiana law seems to give the workers the right not to pay for a service they don’t want (union “protection”). The good news is that this pointless suit is just another drain on labor’s rapidly dwindling coffers.

deadman on April 10, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Not everyone wants to pay dues that end up with the Democrats. Pretty simple, really.

Amazingoly on April 10, 2012 at 12:02 PM

This guy says it right:

They are people, Debbie. Unions are corporations – big, wealthy corporations. But arguing that their right to free speech equals a right to receive compulsory dues payments to fund the speech is like arguing that McDonald’s can force you by law to buy Big Macs so they can keep funding their advertising.

unclesmrgol on April 10, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Liberalism is truely a disease.

Bevan on April 10, 2012 at 9:18 AM

Or in the union’s case, an ongoing criminal enterprise.

jnelchef on April 10, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Alice in Wonderland.

MikeinPRCA on April 10, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Wow, it really must suck to be the lawyers for these unions. This is one of the lamest arguments I’ve ever seen.

AZCoyote on April 10, 2012 at 9:33 AM

I spoke with a “labor attorney” recently, just socially, and we discussed Right-to-work. I commented that some people I know did not like their dues going to support political candidates with whom they disagreed. He claimed that union dues are never used politically. I knew he was lying from that point on. Or totally incompetent.

IrishEyes on April 10, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Another example of conseratives wanting a handout – representation and the benefits thereof without having to pay for it. Freeloaders.

plewis on April 10, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Haha, you cant make this kind of crazy up.

Imrahil on April 10, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Oh, yeah!!

Solaratov on April 10, 2012 at 1:52 PM

This story should have had the Picard/Riker double facepalm picture.

ElectricPhase on April 10, 2012 at 9:20 AM

+1000

Fafhrd on April 10, 2012 at 3:34 PM

I dunno, I kind of like the argument.

Democrats in office are unconstitutional because it curtails the free speech rights of Republicans in their districts.

malclave on April 10, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Down with unions

Wade on April 10, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Had a summer job in college where I had to pay dues to the Teamsters. Thought nothing of it till I backed my truck into a parked car. . . only reason I kept my job the rest of the summer was my union rep, who told me how to handle my disciplinary hearing and sat with me as I got chewed out for being careless. So, I was OK with that. Plus I made really good money that summer.

HOWEVER, the next union job I had, right out of college, was a white collar job. Organized and represented by AFSCME…. the job gave me about 2 hours worth of work for an 8 hour day. In my boredom, I kept finding other things to do to keep busy and make a contribution to my employer. Till the union caught wind of it, and then I got chewed out by my union rep. Basically told me that I had to twiddle my thumbs for 6 hours a day and if there was other work that needed doing, they’d create another full time job for it and get it bargained for the next time around. Arrggh! I quit after a few months, just could not stand the boredom inflicted by union workrules or their push to self-aggrandize.

Been gloriously union-free for more than 30 years.

ugottabekiddingme on April 10, 2012 at 7:16 PM

This argument by the union’s lawyers is a prime example of ”
libberish”.

gasmeterguy on April 11, 2012 at 10:22 AM