Ohio Teachers File Class-Action to Halt Compulsory Union Dues for Political Activism

Union bosses illegally force Ohio’s teachers to pay for electioneering

Columbus, Ohio (August 5, 2011) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, 15 public school teachers across the state filed a federal class-action lawsuit against the Ohio Education Association (OEA) and nine of its regional affiliates for violating their rights.

The group filed the class-action suit after the OEA union unlawfully overcharged the teachers – who have refrained from full-dues-paying union membership – for union "fees" taken from their paychecks, charging them for costs supporting the union’s political activism and electioneering. Per Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution nonmember teachers cannot be forced to pay dues or fees for union boss politics and other non-bargaining activities.

Additionally, the OEA union's regional affiliates are collecting compulsory fees from non-members without providing the kind of independently-audited financial statements required by law.

Read the entire release here.

Manny Lopez from the Detroit News comments on the United Autoworker (UAW) union hierarchy's "new" strategy of organizing workers, (i.e. using even more intimidation and harassment to force additional workers into their dues-paying ranks):

Bob King, the new president of the UAW was stumping for democracy yesterday, and you'd think that it would be hard to corrupt such a thing.

But he did. See, democracy to the unions means do it our way, or no way.

King said the UAW will try a new tactic to organize foreign automakers. The membership-declining union is going to draft a set of principles that will bar companies from using derogatory, untruthful or threatening statements to dissuade workers from organizing (as if that was a one-way street).

"Any company that does not agree to the UAW principles is essentially declaring war on freedom of speech and assembly," he said.

Ta-da, the "shame campaign" (my interpretation, not his).

Those that don't sign on will be labeled as being against the First Amendment.

But as Lopez correctly points out, UAW union hypocrites seem the least bit interested in protecting Michigan workers' rights to also not be forced to associate with something they want no part of:

In fact, the UAW's push for freedom could be a good thing if it were universally open to such a thing. How about the UAW abide by its own new interest in openness and allow its members in Michigan and other forced unionism states to also have the freedom to decide whether they want to be in the union?

I'll buy into the UAW's campaign for the First Amendment and the freedom of speech and assembly when it gives its workers in every state that same opportunity.

How about it Mr. King? Let's make Michigan a right-to-work state. Or is the freedom to choose limited to certain circumstances?

And not only would Right to Work protections be great for workers' rights, it would also be good for their wallets.  Now that's a "new" strategy Michigan's families could support.

As reported in today's Washington Examiner, the National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix sent a letter to the U.S. Senate opposing Elena Kagan's confirmation as a Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court for misrepresenting her views regarding the use of forced union dues for union boss political activity.

From the Examiner:

(Mark Mix argues) Kagan should not be confirmed because when she was asked by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-UT, about a 1996 email she wrote while serving in the Clinton administration, she falsely claimed she was merely repeating the chief executive's views, not her own.

In his letter to the senators, Mix quoted Kagan's email in which she said:

"It is unfortunately true that almost any meaningful campaign finance reform proposal raises constitutional issues. This is a result of the Supreme Court's view - which I believe to be mistaken in many cases - that money is speech and that attempts to limit the influence of money on our political system therefore raises First Amendment problems."

Kagan could not have simply been echoing somebody else's view in that email, Mix argued, because a memo later in 1996 from her and other White House staff members to then-White House chief of staff Leon Panetta "incorporated Ms. Kagan's argument that the First Amendment does not protect the right to spend money for political activities. In short, in 1996 Ms. Kagan both suggested and endorsed that crabbed view of the First Amendment."

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has repeatedly fought to protect workers who are forced to pay union dues and fees as a condition of employment to also support union boss political activities with which they disagree before the U.S. Supreme Court and various other courts across the country.

Mark Mix's letter also noted that Kagen expressed opposition to the Foundation's Supreme Court victory in Communications Workers v. Beck in which the Court affirmed the right of private-sector workers to exercise the same freedom from coerced support of union boss politics under the National Labor Relations Act:

(Ms. Kagan) recommended that President Clinton oppose any legislation protecting the right of workers not to be forced to subsidize union politics, despite the First Amendment’s guarantee of that basic worker freedom of speech and association.

...

Ms. Kagan emailed… her recommendation that (the Administration)… “state strong opposition to Beck legislation, no matter what it is attached to.”

Ms. Kagan… disagreed with the well-established legal principle that underlies the long line of Supreme Court decisions recognizing the constitutional right of workers not to be compelled to subsidize union political activities as a condition of employment… (putting) her far outside the judicial mainstream and (demonstrating) a disdain for the rights of independent-minded American workers.

To read Mark Mix's letter, click here.

The Salt Lake Tribune recently ran the following letter to the editor by Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason in response to an editorial regarding the Foundation's recent victory in federal court over attempts by union partisans to silence the Foundation's legal aid program using Utah's campaign finance regulations:

A newspaper should understand that the First Amendment isn't merely a "loophole," as implied by The Tribune editorial "Repairs needed: Campaign financing laws should be tougher" (Sept. 11) about the National Right to Work Foundation's federal court victory that struck down as unconstitutional key parts of Utah's campaign finance law.

After the foundation received from Utah teachers reports of coercion and illegal use of school property during a union-run petition drive, it ran radio and TV ads informing teachers of their rights and offering free legal aid. Union activists were upset that we would dare to help teacher victims, and they used state campaign finance laws to retaliate. Utah Lt. Gov. Gary Herbert blundered in trying to force our charitable organization to hand over contributor names and other information, even though we never engaged in any kind of electioneering. Herbert's ham-handed actions led to the deserving demise of Utah's broad and vague speech regulations.

The editorial noted that legislators must now go back to the drawing board. This time, they ought to read the First Amendment before putting pen to paper.

Stefan Gleason
Vice President
National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc.
Springfield, Va.

The U.S. District Court has pinned back the ears of the Utah political class, particularly Lieutenant Governor Herbert -- slapping down key provisions of their unconstitutional campaign finance regulations. The law was exploited by political opponents to muzzle -- even criminalize -- certain speech.

When teachers in Utah began complaining to National Right to Work Foundation attorneys in early 2007 that union activists were swarming school property and pressuring them to sign petitions to overturn a school reform measure, the Foundation took quick action by running television and radio ads offering free legal aid.

That did not sit well with union activists who complained to the state's speech regulators. The Lieutenant Governor and staff sent threatening letters to the Foundation demanding contributor information and other private information.

In response, the Foundation -- with the invaluable help of the Madison Center for Free Speech -- filed a lawsuit to challenge parts of Utah's speech regulation laws as unconstitutional violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

In a summary judgment ruling issued late yesterday, Federal Judge Dee Benson agreed with the National Right to Work Foundation. Responding to the ruling, Foundation Vice President Stefan Gleason issued the following statement:

Utah's political authorities, especially Lieutenant Governor Herbert, went way overboard, and their unconstitutional law was deservedly smacked down by the U.S. District Court.

Our organization received numerous reports from employees about coercion and other illegal actions during a union petition drive in 2007. What we do is provide free legal aid and information. That's all we do -- it's the Foundation's mission, whether the union militants engaged in the coercion like it or not.

Just because a teacher union activist doesn't like our public service legal-aid advertisements and files a complaint does not justify the state's politicians coming in and harassing us with unconstitutional regulation.

The Utah law at issue is one of the most unconstitutionally overbroad and overvague of all campaign finance laws in the nation. The Judge recognized this and, not surprisingly, ruled in our favor.

Politicians can't just come in and harass charities with draconian regulations that chill their voluntary, non-express-advocacy speech.

In a press release about the case James Bopp of the James Madison Center for Free Speech said:

This case was a perfect example of government overreaching into the very heart of the First Amendment... the Foundation was engaging in the very activities it always has, offering free legal aid to workers affected by coercive union activities, and because they happened to coincide with a ballot measure election, the state claimed that they were regulable.

This is a decisive victory for the First Amendment. Speech surrounding ballot measures is no less protected than speech about candidates, and regulation of political speech must be limited to express advocacy and organizations cannot be forced to register and report as a political committee unless they have the passage or defeat of a ballot measure as their major purpose.

The James Madison Center release can be downloaded here.