Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Washington Supreme Court Forces Citizens To Be Democrats 27

Journal by pudge

The Washington State Supreme Court has now ruled that if you are a public employee, you can be required -- as a condition of your employment -- to financially support political causes you may disagree with.

Is it mere coincidence that this ruling comes down while the Court has a Democrat majority, the legislature is absolutely controlled by the Democrats, the governor is a Democrat, and the unions in question give the money in question to Democrats?

On top of that, the Democrats greatly increased the size of government this month by spending most of the newfound budget surplus; bigger government means more employees, which means more union dues, which means more campaign contributions for Democrats.

This is likely to be appealed in federal court, on the grounds that forcing workers to contribute to a political party as a condition of employment violates their rights. I hope the Court goes a step further, and says that forcing workers to contribute to unions is a violation of their rights. Let the unions do what they want with their money, but don't force workers to give them money in the first place.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Washington Supreme Court Forces Citizens To Be Democrats More

Washington Supreme Court Forces Citizens To Be Democrats

Comments Filter:

  • Cue the twisted logic from people who think NOT forcing people to contribute to unions is somehow a violation of their rights. Those are the same folks who always come to Texas and look like they are going to vomit when they say "right to work" state, as if it is somehow misnamed.

    • right-o. AZ is a right to work state too and frankly i can't imagine being forced to join a union. i was a member of my union for a while, when i worked in the grocery industry. but nobody forced me to join. personally i think that situation is the best for everybody. it keeps the unions from being as abusive. (it's not perfect by any stretch, but i do think it's better)
  • They're not "forced" to contribute if they can opt out of union organizing fees, as they can in California.
    • I thought I made that clear, but apparently not, so: no, they cannot. That's the point. They are forced to contribute to the unions as a condition of employment, and those funds they contribute are used for political activities, such as donating to politicians.
    • redwarrior [slashdot.org] has some journal entries on this situation, as he is a state employee in WA. The latest of them is here [slashdot.org]. But if you go further back, he has more about the whole process, and how he was forced to join a union or lose his job.
  • I'll agree to your position on the condition that we simultaneously bar businesses from being able to donate to political campaigns and causes.
    • I'll agree to your position on the condition that we simultaneously bar businesses from being able to donate to political campaigns and causes.

      Huh? I am not, in any way, in favor of barring unions from being able to donate to political campaigns or causes. I am in favor of barring them to do it without the permission of the people who are forced, by law, to pay them dues.

      The problem is not unions paying for campaigns, it's that workers are being forced to participate in the process. They must pay dues, u
      • If businesses didn't donate money to campaigns, they could spend it on higher wages, for example. The workers should have to give permission for how their company can donate money to political campaigns.
        • If businesses didn't donate money to campaigns, they could spend it on higher wages, for example. The workers should have to give permission for how their company can donate money to political campaigns.

          I hope you're joking, because that's utter nonsense.
          • Well for union jobs, if the job-seekers don't like it, can't they just apply somewhere else? Just like if I don't like who my private employer is donating to I can go find another job?
            • The private employer you are talking about is not taking your money, or forcing you to give your money to him. He is using his own money, and no matter how much you wish to pretend that is not an important difference, it is.
              • But since the forced contribution is a condition of employment, everyone offered a job knows it is coming. So they know how much their wage is, and how much they have to contribute. So in effect they know ahead of time what their actual wage is going to amount to. There's just an intermediate step in which some of the money passes from their hands into the union's.
                • But since the forced contribution is a condition of employment, everyone offered a job knows it is coming.

                  That's wrong on three grounds. First, it is not necessarily known by everyone, and it can't be known *how much* is to be taken, because that is subject to change.

                  Second, even if it is known, it is still taking their money; it's nonsense to say they know "in effect" what their wage will be, because it is still their money being forcibly taken from them by a private organization (of course, this is more
          • I hope you're joking, because that's utter nonsense.

            Why?

            There's nothing that I know of in the Constitution that guarantees the rights of corporate entities; rather, it's the rights of the people that are defined, that they can be protected.

            Corporations have no bloody business forcing people to support one party or another. I consider unions to be a "Corporation", for that is what they are: a business. They are businesses that fill a niche, which is to represent the cause(s) of the members to their respec
            • There's nothing that I know of in the Constitution that guarantees the rights of corporate entities; rather, it's the rights of the people that are defined, that they can be protected.

              Right, and businesses are owned by people, and they have the right to spend the money they own through that business however they wish to spend it.

              Corporations have no bloody business forcing people to support one party or another.

              Correct. And they do not, in the case of the private businesses you were referring to. In the c
              • I could not disagree more. They have every right to be involved in politics, based on the will of their membership, as long as that membership is optional, and as long as nonmembers are not compelled to contribute.

                This is the heart of the matter.

                There are a couple things I think about unions:
                • Union membership should not be required to work anywhere.
                • Union dues collected should be spent for Union Business, not politics. If the union wants to make donations to the political machine, let them raise money thr
                • Union membership should not be required to work anywhere.

                  Right. And technically, it is not required. But dues ARE required, even if not a member. If they simply repudiated THAT, then that would solve the problem.

                  Union dues collected should be spent for Union Business, not politics. If the union wants to make donations to the political machine, let them raise money through voluntary donations.

                  That makes no sense to me, at all. Politics largely IS the union's business, just like it is the business of a la
                  • Politics largely IS the union's business, just like it is the business of a land developer, or a software publisher. The owners of these businesses authorize the business to hire people to lobby the government, as is their right. The union is no different.

                    ...

                    Maybe, maybe not. But whatever, let them unionize. Just don't let them take my money without my permission, and if they do, then don't let them use that money for political purposes.

                    This seems contradictory to me... The business of unions is politics
                    • This seems contradictory to me... The business of unions is politics

                      Part of it.

                      but don't let them use money they raise for political purposes?

                      Who ever said that? I certainly didn't. I never said blanketly that they should not be able to spend their money for political purposes. It was only these specific funds, the ones that employees are required by law to give them, that I said should not be used for political purposes.

                      But I would rather they simply stop stealing the employees' money in the first place
                    • but don't let them use money they raise for political purposes?


                      Who ever said that? I certainly didn't.

                      Yes, you did [slashdot.org]. It's the last clause you wrote. All I did is put it in the form of a question to ask for clarification because it seemed to conflict with something you said earlier in that same post.
                    • Yes, you did.

                      No, I didn't.

                      It's the last clause you wrote.

                      No, it's not.

                      All I did is put it in the form of a question

                      No, you didn't.

                      I'll quote what I wrote: "Just don't let them take my money without my permission, and if they do, then don't let them use that money for political purposes."

                      I did not say, as you say I said, that unions cannot use money they raise for political purposes. I said they should not use money they take from me without my permission for political purposes.
                    • I'll quote what I wrote: "Just don't let them take my money without my permission, and if they do, then don't let them use that money for political purposes."

                      I did not say, as you say I said, that unions cannot use money they raise for political purposes. I said they should not use money they take from me without my permission for political purposes.

                      Since they can do whatever they want with the monies they collect (everywhere, it seems, except perhaps California), it amounts to the same thing.

                      Everywhere I'
                    • Since they can do whatever they want with the monies they collect ... it amounts to the same thing.

                      Obviously not, since what I said was that they should not be allowed to use money taken by force for political purposes, and you incorrectly interpreted that as me being against them spending any of their money at all for political purposes. Those do not amount to the same thing, quite clearly.

                      Everywhere I've been, unions are either not present, or they are in the workplace and compulsory. There hasn't been a
  • If it weren't for Washington, Oregon would be the most screwed up state in the nation.

    You guys are awesome!

Slashdot Top Deals

If this is timesharing, give me my share right now.

Close