“We are disappointed that at a time when big corporations and the
wealthy few are rewriting the rules in their favor, knocking American
families and our entire economy off-balance, the Supreme Court has
chosen to take a case that threatens the fundamental promise of America —
that if you work hard and play by the rules you should be able to
provide for your family and live a decent life,” National Education
Association president Lily Eskelsen García and United Federation of
Teachers president Randi Weingarten declared in a joint statement.
Editor's notes: NEA's Lily Garcia makes a great sounding argument, too bad it has nothing to do with the legal question in this lawsuit. When I worked in the Fresno School District as a special-ed teacher, I was forced to pay union dues over my protests. To make matters worse, for me, those dues were spent in support of every progressive/socialist program of the day. I had no say as to this circumstance. And that is the issue at stake, in this suit.
Understand that, in most cases, Progessive programs cannot survive popular demand. As a consequence, they are forced on the unknowing public and the Left grabs more and more power in spite of their unpopularity. This lawsuit threatens that dynamic, to a very important extent.
The advancement of union membership has been sharply curtailed, in recent years. Something like 6% of the private sector is unionized. The last bastions of power, for the national unions are found in a rigged NLRB and its union favoring regulations, and, the forced payment of "member dues," whether one is a member or not.
If a Conservative wins the presidency in 2016, the make up of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) will certainly change. More than this, if the Supremes decide that forced collection of dues violates personal liberties, a second major hit to our socialist unions will have been registered.
Fingers crossed.
No comments:
Post a Comment