The Supreme Court heard fiery arguments Monday in a case that could remove a key revenue stream for public-sector unions.
The case was brought by Mark Janus, a child support specialist for the state of Illinois. He says he's not against unions, per se: "The problem is that government has given these unions this special privilege to charge us for these fees, in essence, without my permission." Actually, it's a little more complicated - those who choose not to join a union (particularly in the public sector) are nonetheless required to pay "fair-share" fees to that union. Ostensibly, these "partial dues" are not to be used for union politicking.
It's a lie that union bosses have promulgated for nearly half a century; they claim that all "partial dues" monies are used solely to pay for contract "negotiations" when they are, in fact, used to promote policies and Democrat candidates that a conservative would not support - unless forced to do so. And that's exactly how it works.
Kennedy and other conservative justices on the court took the position that everything a public employee union bargains for involves public policy, and thus a public employee who disagrees with that policy should not be forced to pay for the negotiations.
In the 1950s, about a third of the U.S. workforce was union members. Now, it's only about 11 percent overall.
And over one-third of union members are public employees. Even FDR opposed allowing that to happen, and with good reason: public employee unions become adversaries of the general public, because nothing that they "negotiate" ever affects them. If taxes must be raised, they can "negotiate" pay increases to offset the effects. So they are effectively insulated while all the rest of us take the hit.
To some degree, that may be about to change when SCOTUS renders their decision.
Sorry, the ad was done on VHS tape.
