ARE LAWMAKERS DUPING HOOSIERS ON RIGHT-TO-WORK?

Neometric · **Joined:** Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:29 pm **Posts:** 630

As framed by the Indiana GOP, the status, terms and conditions of employment realized from the work of union representation during collective bargaining are incidental, and cannot and should not justify quantum merit compensation.

But is this truly what's at issue? Isn't it more a question of using the charged fees for the added work of political representation beyond that of administratively ensuring compliance with the collectively bargained-for employment contract? For there is no way, legally or morally, to justify or circumvent the inequity of unjust enrichment for work that directly confers employment contract benefits, and it is doubtful American courts would countenance it.

Meanwhile, ten days ago the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Knox v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1000 (10-1121), a controversy arising out of the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco. This case provides all but mirrors the issues informing Indiana's right-to-work controversy.

As described by the Legal Information Institute (LII), "California nonunion state employees sued their collective bargaining agent, alleging that the imposition of an additional agency fee assessment used to fund political actions without notice or an opportunity to object violated their First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the nonunion employees. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed. The nonunion employees now appeal.

The Supreme Court will determine what disclosures unions must provide when imposing additional agency fees on nonmembers, and the extent to which unions can use nonmembersâ€™ wages to fund expenditures without first obtaining consent.

According to LII, the questions before the high court are (1) "May a State, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, condition employment on the payment of a special union assessment intended solely for political and ideological expenditures without first providing a notice that includes information about that assessment and provides an opportunity to object to its exaction?"

(2) In Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Ass'n, this Court held that "the State constitutionally may not compel its employees to subsidize legislative lobbying or other political union activities outside the limited context of contract ratification or implementation." 500 U.S. 507, 522 (1991) (opinion of Blackmun, J.); accord id. at 559 (opinion of Scalia, J.) (concurring as to "the challenged lobbying expenses"). Thus, may a State, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, condition continued public employment on the payment of union agency fees for purposes of financing political expenditures for ballot measures?
Bear in mind that California state employees are required to pay fees to Service Employers International Union, Local 1000 (the â€œUnionâ€) for exclusive representation as their collective bargaining agent.

Prior to collecting agency fees, employee unions must issue a Hudson notice to all nonmembers. A Hudson notice is a constitutionally mandated document that explains the basis of the agency fee to nonmembers, and provides them with an opportunity to object to the fee and pay a reduced amount that covers only their relative percentage of â€œchargeableâ€ union expenses. The agency feeâ€™s basis is derived from the audited expenditures of the prior fee year.

Therefore, the Hudson notice contains information on a unionâ€™s expenditures from the prior year, broken down into â€œchargeableâ€ and â€œnon-chargeableâ€ expenditures. â€œChargeableâ€ expenditures are those related to a union's representative functions, whileâ€œnon-chargeableâ€ expenses cover activities outside of representation, including the funding of ideological activities and political expenditures.

By default, employee unions generally charge nonmembers agency fees that include both chargeable and non-chargeable expenditures. However, if a nonmember objects to the agency fee within thirty days of receiving a Hudson notice, that nonmemberâ€™s agency fee is limited to their pro-rata share of the prior yearâ€™s chargeable expenditures.

In September 2005, the Union issued a temporary increase to the ordinary agency fees equal to .25% of Union members' gross wages without providing nonmembers an opportunity to object to this fee increase. Although the agenda indicated that the additional fees would exclusively fund political expenditures, the Union later stated that it intended to use part of the fees to fund collective bargaining actions. In effect, the money was used for both political and non-political expenditures, which were classified as both â€œchargeableâ€ and â€œnon-chargeable.â€

Nonmembers sued the Union in November 2005, alleging that the assessment violated their First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the nonmembersâ€™ motion for summary judgment, finding that the Unionâ€™s Hudson notice did not provide nonmembers with the information necessary to make an informed choice about whether or not to object to the additional assessment. The district court also held that the Hudson notice failed to provide an adequate basis for the additional assessment.

The Union appealed the district courtâ€™s decision. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and held that the Unionâ€™s notice complied with the Hudson notice procedural requirements, and adequately protected nonmembersâ€™ constitutional rights.

On September 29, 2011, the Union issued a notice stating that, pursuant to a refund request, it would voluntarily refund 100% of any 2005â€“2006 temporary fees paid by nonmembers.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari on June 27, 2011, and the Union moved to dismiss the case as moot. The Supreme Court deferred its consideration of the mootness issue until a hearing of the case on the merits.

At issue then is whether a union can use nonunion membersâ€™ state-mandated fees to finance political expenditures or ballot measures, despite providing limited information about such uses, and without offering nonmembers any opportunity to object.

Knox contends that the Union violated the Courtâ€™s ruling in Lehnert, which held that nonmembers generally may not be compelled to subsidize a unionâ€™s political expenditures. There is an exception to Lehnert when an expenditure is (1) germane to collective-bargaining activity, (2) necessary to satisfy the governmentâ€™s interest in labor peace and avoiding â€œfree riders,â€ and (3) does not further burden free speech to achieve those interests (although Knox notes that this is a point that requires clarification).

Knox argues that the Unionâ€™s expenditure does not fall within this exception. Emphasizing the narrowness of the Lehnert exception, Knox asserts that the Unionâ€™s limited mention of collective-bargaining is insufficient to satisfy the first prong, and that compelling support for political lobbying is not necessary to satisfy a unionâ€™s interests in labor peace and the removal of free riders. Thus, Knox concludes that the Ninth Circuit's ruling misapplied Lehnert and should be reversed.

Knox also contends that the Union violated the Courtâ€™s ruling in Lehnert, which held that nonmembers generally may not be compelled to subsidize a unionâ€™s political expenditures. There is an exception to Lehnert when an expenditure is (1) germane to collective-bargaining activity, (2) necessary to satisfy the governmentâ€™s interest in labor peace and avoiding â€œfree riders,â€ and (3) does not further burden free speech to achieve those interests (although Knox notes that this is a point that requires clarification). Knox argues that the Unionâ€™s expenditure does not fall within this exception.

Emphasizing the narrowness of the Lehnert exception, Knox asserts that the Unionâ€™s limited mention of collective-bargaining is insufficient to satisfy the first prong, and that compelling support for political lobbying is not necessary to satisfy a unionâ€™s interests in labor peace and the removal of free riders. Thus, Knox concludes that the Ninth Circuit's ruling misapplied Lehnert and should be reversed.

I contend our legislators are distorting what is that the political factions are fighting about. For there is no way to justify free riders under our system of law. To obscure the true issue of political use of union representation fees as an issue of benefits realized via collective bargaining is illusory.

chuckmo48 · **Posted:** Fri Jan 20, 2012 6:26 pm

The Educator's Association I was a member of (and, at one time, president of our local) would send out notices to all members that they could ask for and receive a partial refund of their dues that was allocated for political activities...

LaughingAtLakeCo · **Joined:** Tue Oct 07, 2008 1:22 pm **Posts:** 1435

Neometric wrote:

For there is no way to justify free riders under our system of law.

Statements like that must send shivers down the spines of welfare recipients and LC municipal and county employees on the Friends and Family Plan.

chuckmo48 wrote:

The Educator's Association I was a member of (and, at one time, president of our local) would send out notices to all members that they could ask for and receive a partial refund of their dues that was allocated for political activities...

It takes either gumption or that special shamelessness possessed by Northwest Indiana public employees to boast that you were a member of (let alone president of) an organization that labeled itself as a group of educators but produced such miserable results.

chuckmo48 · **Posted:** Sat Jan 21, 2012 7:43 am

LaughingAtLakeCo wrote:

It takes either gumption or that special shamelessness possessed by Northwest Indiana public employees to boast that you were a member of (let alone president of) an organization that labeled itself as a group of educators but produced such miserable results.

Not where I was an educator at...you just like to paint everyone/everything with your broad repub rube brush...

chuckmo48 · **Posted:** Sat Jan 21, 2012 7:50 am

LaughingAtLakeCo wrote:

Statements like that must send shivers down the spines of welfare recipients and LC municipal and county employees on the Friends and Family Plan.

Personally, why do you care what happens in Lake County IF you do not reside here...Funny though, when the rest of the state freeloads from the amount of tax money we have to send to the state...and IF you do not live in Lake County why aren't you complaining about the local tax you must pay that we don't have too...

USMarine · **Joined:** Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:55 am **Posts:** 10483

They are talking about making it ballot referendum but that might not pass legal muster.

Either way, the Democrats abdicating their legislative responsibilities looks really bad which makes me very happy.

Right to Work is the right thing to do... :smt006

karent · **Joined:** Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:33 pm **Posts:** 1408

Lots of radio ads for RTW, as well as telephone surveys. I liked the letter in the paper yesterday, saying if it passes, you shouldn't have to belong to Sams to get benefits, or pay membership at a health club to exercise.

LaughingAtLakeCo · **Joined:** Tue Oct 07, 2008 1:22 pm **Posts:** 1435

chuckmo48 wrote:

Not where I was an educator at...you just like to paint everyone/everything with your broad repub rube brush...

You have to admit that you Ree-jects, Reej-tards, and Regionites make it pretty easy to paint with a broad brush. You wink and nod at corruption and waste, you live with the mistaken notion that because you can see the Chicago skyline from Whiting and Gary that somehow you have a degree of sophistication not possessed by the rest of the state (you don't. Really, there are probably more rubes per square mile in Lake County than even the most concentrated collection of farmers in Indiana (wherever that is) could muster) and that you are just one tax increase or one convention center away from prosperity.

chuckmo48 wrote:

Personally, why do you care what happens in Lake County IF you do not reside here...Funny though, when the rest of the state freeloads from the amount of tax money we have to send to the state...and IF you do not live in Lake County why aren't you complaining about the local tax you must pay that we don't have too...

Well, I do care, to a degree, sort of. I still have relatives there. I also own a small bit of rental property--though mercifully nowhere close to Hammond/Gary/East Chicago/Whiting. Your embrace of mediocrity and endless tolerance for the aforementioned corruption and waste does have a small bearing on my net worth. The property is vacant now and I don't make a whole lot from it when it is rented and it isn't a real drain between occupants. It's just frustration with the fact that no matter how nice I keep the place (and really, it is pretty nice) your politicians are working overtime to find ways to pick my pockets, as well as those of the relatively few remaining honest, hardworking, and entrepreneurial people that live there--and that that way of life is just accepted by the electorate. Further, and more selfishly, the same incompetence will have an effect on my family's estate.

Why don't I complain about my local taxes? Simple. For the most part, they are used as intended, and not to provide take-home vehicles to cronies and consulting jobs for countless friends and family members of an old guard. The city in which I live has it's share of graft, but it isn't ingrained in the culture and there is far less tolerance for it.

As far as the rest of Indiana freeloading off of you--well, that goes back to your chummy relationship with wasteful, corrupt (Democratic) politicians. You all know it exists but pretend to have a right to be indignant when the rest of the state says "enough. No more good money after bad." You simply ignore fifty years of theft and probably over 100 public officials marched off to jail and can't understand or accept that other people may just be sick of it all.

It's really just catharsis. I know I'm not going to change anything by writing here and my own relatives chose to stay there and just keep taking the beating. As for my property, that's just my tough luck. It'll sell if I choose to do so, but now is not the right time, and really, it's just not that big of a problem managing it.

I know that you, and Mayor McDermott, and his goon squad, and the staff of WJOB can find occasional wrongdoing anywhere, and by both Republicans and Democrats. However, your guys just never, ever quit. You all just seem to revel in the fact that your leaders may be thieves, incompetents, and losers, but they are YOUR thieves, incompetents, and losers--that's just how it's done in Da' Region and everyone else just has to be fine with it.

P.S. Not that it matters greatly, but what I should have written was that rental income from my property won't really make or break me. The house itself actually does represent a decent chunk of my net worth. Democratic shenanigans and the north Lake County's decades-old crappy reputation make it much tougher to attract people that can afford to live there (and the rent isn't all that extravagant) and that I trust to keep up with their share of the maintenance.

USMarine · **Joined:** Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:55 am **Posts:** 10483

Indiana Senate votes 28-22 for right-to-work bill

:smt023

Published January 23, 2012

| Associated Press

INDIANAPOLIS â€“ The Indiana Senate has voted to approve the right-to-work bill that has prompted the legislative boycotts by House Democrats.

The Republican-dominated Senate voted 28-22 in favor of the proposal Monday evening. The bill prohibits companies and unions from agreeing to contracts that require workers who aren't union members to pay representation fees.

Republican Sen. Carlin Yoder of Middlebury argued the bill not only would help attract business to Indiana but also give workers freedom to decide what to do with their money.

Democratic Sen. Vi Simpson of Bloomington questioned whether the law was needed. She says good companies such as Honda and Toyota have expanded in Indiana in recent years without it.

Nine Republicans joined all 13 Democratic senators in voting against the bill.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01 ... z1kNoyhq9Y

Northwest Indiana Discussion

ARE LAWMAKERS DUPING HOOSIERS ON RIGHT-TO-WORK?

Who is online