\nAn address by Bruce N. Cameron, J.D.
\n
Attorney, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation
\nDelivered to the Christian Educators Association
\nJuly 3, 1997
\n<\/b>
\n
Their limo had broken down right in front of the train station. So, John Sweeney, the President of
\nthe AFL-CIO, Bob Chase, the President of the National Education Association, and Ron Carey, the
\nPresident of the Teamsters union, decided to take the train.<\/P><\/p>\n
As they approached the ticket booth, Sweeney told the other two, \u00abTrust me on these tickets. I’m
\nnot the tycoon of the train unions for nothin’.\u00bb So he bought a single train ticket –just one– for all three
\nof them.<\/P><\/p>\n
As they sat waiting in the station, three regular working \u00abstiffs\u00bb bought their tickets and sat down
\nnext to them. The working guys recognized the union chiefs and noticed they had only one ticket among
\nthe three of them, so they asked, \u00abHow are all three of you going on the train with just one ticket?\u00bb<\/P><\/p>\n
\u00abJust watch,\u00bb Sweeney grinned.<\/P><\/p>\n
When the train came, they all boarded and the three union chieftains trooped into the mens’
\nbathroom and they all squeezed into one stall. Pretty soon the ticket-collector came to the door of the
\nstall, calling out \u00abtickets, tickets please.\u00bb Sweeney opened the door a crack and stuck out his one ticket.<\/P><\/p>\n
Needless to say, the regular working guys were pretty impressed.<\/P><\/p>\n
Later that day, they all found themselves again in the train station waiting for the return trip.
\nThis time the three working guys had only one ticket among them. As they looked over at the union
\nbosses, not one of them had a ticket. \u00abWait a minute,\u00bb one of the workers said, \u00abwe understand now how
\nyou three were able to ride on one ticket, but how do you do it with no ticket?\u00bb<\/P><\/p>\n
Sweeney smiled and said, \u00abJust watch.\u00bb<\/P><\/p>\n
When the train came, the three workers got on and crammed themselves into a bathroom stall.
\nThe union chiefs did the same in the stall next door. A few minutes later Sweeney slipped out of his stall
\nand called out, \u00abtickets, tickets please.\u00bb<\/P><\/p>\n
Maybe you are here today because this story seems familiar. Perhaps you have the feeling that At the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation we get calls from employees every day There is good news. No matter where you work, or who you work for, you are entitled to keep Two things can make a difference in how much you pay to the union. They are:<\/P><\/p>\n \t1. Geography; and,<\/P><\/p>\n \t\t2. The nature of your objection to supporting the union.<\/P>\n<\/ul>\n We can cover \u00abgeography\u00bb in 30 seconds. If you work in a Right To Work state (and there are Explaining how the nature of your objection makes a difference in the amount you pay to the Imagine with me, a cool, clear morning. A wind is blowing off the Sea of Galilee.<\/P><\/p>\n Peter is standing on the porch, smelling the water, letting the breeze sweep over his face. On days like His pleasant daydream was abruptly interrupted by two official-looking gentlemen who suddenly For those of you uncertain whether \u00abdrachma\u00bb is flora or fauna, it is neither. The word literally means This morning the drachma collectors had a specific target. That target was Jesus, Peter’s master. \u00abDoesn’t your master pay the temple tax?\u00bb<\/P><\/p>\n Peter, being a little short on legal and accounting advice, considered only the obvious Peter is like me. I’m full of opinions about how my money should be spent. But money Like Peter, I don’t have any money.<\/P><\/p>\n Because Peter was like me in that regard, he had to walk into the house to get the temple tax When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak, \u00abWhat do you think, Peter began to think his answer might have been a little hasty. He had already confessed that he The question of taxation had become a moral issue. If Christ is the Son of God, then He should Many teachers today are faced with a parallel problem. They work under a contract which More and more, just like the light dawning on Peter, teachers today are seeing that serious moral Serious questions. Nonpayment has serious consequences for a teacher: the loss of the job; Payment also has serious consequences. Perhaps, as in Peter’s dilemma, the issue comes down to Let’s find out how Christ resolved the problem. Matthew 17:27 records Christ saying:<\/P><\/p>\n But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first We started out with Peter wishing he were fishing. We find out that the solution to this knotty Who could know?<\/P><\/p>\n Seriously, this story has two guiding principles that directly translate into my litigation for I must confess that when I get these religious objector calls, I have not had the courage to tell Do you know what I mean when I use the term \u00abcharity substitution payment?\u00bb Instead of The union claims, just like the drachma collectors, that everyone must pay and those who refuse A lot of times I hear \u00abgood ideas\u00bb that are not supported by the law. The charity substitution The right of a broad range of religious objectors to make the charity substitution payment did not What about religious objectors who are not Seventh-day Adventists? The first expansion of the \tThe United States Court of Appeals, over the vigorous objection of the Machinists union, held \tThe next extension of the doctrine came in a case entitled EEOC v. University of Detroit, <\/EM>904 \tThe case arose when Dr. Roesser found out that the NEA and its state affiliate were pro-abortion \tDr. Roesser’s case was factually unlike any of those which I have described so far in two \tThe United States Court of Appeals determined that individual religious belief should be the \tThat brings us to where we are today. Sincere religious objectors are not required to pay any \tEven better news for most teachers is that the NEA and its affiliates concede the charity \tYou say, \u00abAlright, Bruce, I have read the title to your talk. So far you’ve discussed fishing, strangling the NEA, defunding the left and other pleasant pursuits?\u00bb<\/P><\/p>\n \tThat brings us to the rest of the objections in the big circle of objectors I had you create in your \tAs a litigator, I look at cases from the client’s point of view. That’s my job. But let’s step back \tWhat the unions report as political (PAC) contributions is just the tip of the iceberg. In addition \tRutgers University economics Professor Leo Troy testified before the Congressional House \tThat adds up to about 600 million dollars (95 + 500). Six-hundred million dollars! That seems \tThis 600 million dollars is basically used to support Democrats. This money spigot of the left is \tLet’s go back now to our litigation on behalf of political objectors. The picture from the Their limo had broken down right in front of the train station. So, John Sweeney, the President of As they approached the ticket booth, Sweeney told the other two, \u00abTrust me on these tickets. I’m As they sat waiting in the station, three regular working \u00abstiffs\u00bb bought their tickets and sat down \u00abJust watch,\u00bb Sweeney grinned.<\/P><\/p>\n When the train came, they all boarded and the three union chieftains trooped into the mens’ Needless to say, the regular working guys were pretty impressed.<\/P><\/p>\n Later that day, they all found themselves again in the train station waiting for the return trip. Sweeney smiled and said, \u00abJust watch.\u00bb<\/P><\/p>\n When the train came, the three workers got on and crammed themselves into a bathroom stall. Maybe you are here today because this story seems familiar. Perhaps you have the feeling that At the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation we get calls from employees every day There is good news. No matter where you work, or who you work for, you are entitled to keep Two things can make a difference in how much you pay to the union. They are:<\/P><\/p>\n \t1. Geography; and,<\/P><\/p>\n \t\t2. The nature of your objection to supporting the union.<\/P>\n<\/ul>\n We can cover \u00abgeography\u00bb in 30 seconds. If you work in a Right To Work state (and there are Explaining how the nature of your objection makes a difference in the amount you pay to the Imagine with me, a cool, clear morning. A wind is blowing off the Sea of Galilee.<\/P><\/p>\n Peter is standing on the porch, smelling the water, letting the breeze sweep over his face. On days like His pleasant daydream was abruptly interrupted by two official-looking gentlemen who suddenly For those of you uncertain whether \u00abdrachma\u00bb is flora or fauna, it is neither. The word literally means This morning the drachma collectors had a specific target. That target was Jesus, Peter’s master. \u00abDoesn’t your master pay the temple tax?\u00bb<\/P><\/p>\n Peter, being a little short on legal and accounting advice, considered only the obvious Peter is like me. I’m full of opinions about how my money should be spent. But money Like Peter, I don’t have any money.<\/P><\/p>\n Because Peter was like me in that regard, he had to walk into the house to get the temple tax When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak, \u00abWhat do you think, Peter began to think his answer might have been a little hasty. He had already confessed that he The question of taxation had become a moral issue. If Christ is the Son of God, then He should Many teachers today are faced with a parallel problem. They work under a contract which More and more, just like the light dawning on Peter, teachers today are seeing that serious moral Serious questions. Nonpayment has serious consequences for a teacher: the loss of the job; Payment also has serious consequences. Perhaps, as in Peter’s dilemma, the issue comes down to Let’s find out how Christ resolved the problem. Matthew 17:27 records Christ saying:<\/P><\/p>\n But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first We started out with Peter wishing he were fishing. We find out that the solution to this knotty Who could know?<\/P><\/p>\n Seriously, this story has two guiding principles that directly translate into my litigation for I must confess that when I get these religious objector calls, I have not had the courage to tell Do you know what I mean when I use the term \u00abcharity substitution payment?\u00bb Instead of The union claims, just like the drachma collectors, that everyone must pay and those who refuse A lot of times I hear \u00abgood ideas\u00bb that are not supported by the law. The charity substitution The right of a broad range of religious objectors to make the charity substitution payment did not What about religious objectors who are not Seventh-day Adventists? The first expansion of the \tThe United States Court of Appeals, over the vigorous objection of the Machinists union, held \tThe next extension of the doctrine came in a case entitled EEOC v. University of Detroit, <\/EM>904 \tThe case arose when Dr. Roesser found out that the NEA and its state affiliate were pro-abortion \tDr. Roesser’s case was factually unlike any of those which I have described so far in two \tThe United States Court of Appeals determined that individual religious belief should be the \tThat brings us to where we are today. Sincere religious objectors are not required to pay any \tEven better news for most teachers is that the NEA and its affiliates concede the charity \tYou say, \u00abAlright, Bruce, I have read the title to your talk. So far you’ve discussed fishing, strangling the NEA, defunding the left and other pleasant pursuits?\u00bb<\/P><\/p>\n \tThat brings us to the rest of the objections in the big circle of objectors I had you create in your \tAs a litigator, I look at cases from the client’s point of view. That’s my job. But let’s step back \tAs I mentioned before, with some exceptions, unions do not have the right to pick your pocket if \tThe view of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is consistent with what these \tWe argued that point before the Supreme Court on behalf of public employees in Abood v. \tThe Supreme Court disagreed with our first argument, but agreed with our second argument — \tThereafter, we brought two cases to the Supreme Court which covered nearly the rest of all of \tWith those three cases, Abood, Ellis<\/EM> and Beck<\/EM>, we locked in the rights of virtually every \tYears ago I was traveling in Maine on business with another lawyer from our office. Anyone \tAlthough we were not really lost, the road labeling system was not helping us to find our \tInstead of just telling you that you do not have to pay for union politics, let me give you \tThe first step to keeping more of your own money is to resign from the union. If you are a \tOnce you are no longer a member, the union has to tell you something about how it spends its \tThis requirement that unions give nonmembers financial information about the union comes \tThe answer is, \u00abno,\u00bb you do not have to trust them. Ronald Reagan said, \u00abTrust, but verify.\u00bb The \tAt this point (after you have looked at the union’s financial documents) you have to make a \tOn the other hand, if you look at the union’s numbers and you think they are wrong, you can \tTo obtain a hearing on a further reduction, you must object!<\/EM> Objecting, and letting the union \tLet me repeat this. If you think the union is charging you too much, you have to let them know. \tIf you do object, at the hearing, the union carries the burden of proof. Not you. The union has to \tOf course, if you do not dispute part of the fee, if you agree that the union is entitled to a certain \tNow you ask, \u00abHow can I know if my union is charging me the right fee amount?\u00bb The most \tWe are continually involved in litigation over what comes under each of these categories. \tContributions to political candidates or campaigns is nonchargeable. On the other hand, the \tLobbying is not chargeable. Even lobbying on teacher certification issues is not chargeable. The \tAlmost all union litigation expenses are not chargeable. The exception is if the union is litigating \tOrganizing expenses are not chargeable. (Some unions continue to fight us on litigation and Union newspaper expenses are chargeable to the extent that they report on chargeable activity.<\/P><\/p>\n If you have other specific categories of expenses, you can ask me later during the question and \tAlright. Jerry Maguire says, \u00abShow me the money.\u00bb You want to know, how much money can a \tWhen we first started litigating these cases the Machinists (I believe) would give you a 50 cent \tThat is not how things are today. When we have been in federal court, the agency fee amount \tEven apart from litigation, just knowing that the National Right to Work Legal Defense \tIn California, where we have litigated against the NEA and its state affiliate the California \tWhat that means in California, is that every nonmember who simply sends in a postcard to the \tIn Illinois, we have been routinely settling with the NEA affiliate there for 62% of total dues. For religious objectors in Illinois, that 62% goes to charity.<\/P><\/p>\n \tIn Massachusetts, where I have litigated against the NEA for about twenty years, my clients generally paid less than 15% of dues for the first ten years. The next ten years is currently in litigation. The state labor board has handed down a decision, currently on appeal, which covers about five of those years. The result of that decision has my clients paying about 60% of dues. (Precision on this number is complicated by a settlement and the fact that the board has not completely adjudicated the case yet. We trust the appeal will further lower this number.)<\/P><\/p>\n \tLet me just summarize for you. Foundation-supported litigation has played a substantial part in creating the following state of the law: No employee in the United States is required to be a union member; Non-union employees covered by Right to Work laws are not required to pay any union fees; Even employees who are not covered by Right to Work laws have the right to limit their fee payment to reimbursement for collective bargaining costs. Employees with sincere religious objections may be able to redirect their entire union fee to charity.<\/P><\/p>\n * Scripture taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version, copyright 1973, 1978, 1984
\nunion officials want, or worse, have <\/EM>something of yours that does not belong to them? Do you think they
\nare tricking you out of your money? Maybe they are just threatening you to part with your money?<\/P><\/p>\n
\nwho object to being forced to join or financially support a labor union.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nwhat is yours; and refuse to have your money used to support principles, ideas and policies that are
\ndirectly opposed to your beliefs.<\/P><\/p>\n
\n21 of them(1)<\/SUP><\/A>) you can decide to pay the union nothing. The only exceptions are for employees who work
\nin the railroad and airline industries, and those who work on certain federal enclaves.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nunion takes a bit longer. Draw a mental picture of a big circle. Included in that big circle are all kinds of
\nobjections to unions. Inside the big circle of all objectors is a much smaller circle of a special kind of
\nreligious objector. These religious objectors have special rights. Since this is the Christian Educators
\nAssociation, let’s start with the religious objectors and what better place to start than with a Bible story.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nthis in Capernaum, Peter missed fishing. Soon he was lost in thought about the \u00abbig one\u00bb that didn’t get
\naway.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nappeared on the porch next to him. Peter thought they looked like drachma collectors.<\/P><\/p>\n
\n\u00abfistfuls\u00bb– of money, that is. The drachma collectors were out gathering the temple tax which every
\nadult, male, Jew was required to pay.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nSo just as Peter was standing there, wishing he were fishing, the drachma collectors presented him with a
\ntrick question. That question, found in the gospel of Matthew 17:24 was:<\/P><\/p>\n
\nimplications of such a question. One who dodges taxes is dishonest. Perhaps disloyal. Taxes to support
\nthe temple inject religious questions. So perhaps one who dodges temple taxes does not adhere to the
\nhighest religious standards. At the very minimum a tax dodger is cheap. So in Matthew 17:25 Peter gives
\nthe obvious answer: \u00abYes, of course, my master pays the temple tax.\u00bb<\/P><\/p>\n
\nquestions for me are all hypothetical questions because I don’t control my money. Do you know the
\nstandard marriage vows have this phrase, \u00abI pledge my troth?\u00bb Do you know what a \u00abtroth\u00bb is? When I
\nwas 23 I didn’t. I asked my wife-to-be what it was that I was pledging. She said, \u00abDarling, troth means
\ntreasure.\u00bb So they made that little substitution in my vows.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nmoney. There he found, to his amazement, that the drachma collectors were not the only ones interested
\nin discussing taxes with him. Matthew 17:25 says:<\/P><\/p>\n
\nSimon\u00bb He asked, \u00abfrom whom do the kings of the earth collect taxes — from their own
\nsons or from others?\u00bb (NIV*)<\/P><\/p>\n
\nbelieved that Jesus was the Son of the Living God ( 16:16). He knew that the temple was God’s
\nsanctuary among men. He knew that sons were normally exempt from taxation by their fathers. This
\nproblem could give him a headache. Suddenly, more than ever, he felt he would rather be fishing. <\/P><\/p>\n
\nnot pay the temple tax. For Him to pay the tax would be to acknowledge that He was not the Son of God.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nrequires them to either join the teachers union, generally the National Education Association (NEA), or
\npay fees to support the union. The drachma collectors come to these teachers and they make these same
\nkind of arguments: the teachers are told that if they fail to pay they are dishonest, disloyal or maybe just
\ncheap. Unfortunately, it does not stop with the \u00absticks and stones\u00bb kind of approach. They are also told
\nthat if they do not pay they will be fired.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nissues are at stake in the payment of these union fees. Teachers phone me all the time and say, \u00abDo you
\nknow that the NEA is pro-abortion? Do you know that the NEA promotes the homosexual life-style?
\nDo you know that the NEA attacks what I believe in, calling my Christian views ‘right-wing
\nextremism?'\u00bb(2)<\/SUP><\/A> They ask, \u00abHow can I support both sides of these issues? On Sunday I hear that support
\nfor these activities is sin. The following Monday I read a report in the union newsletter that I am paying
\nfor those activities. How can I teach my Sunday school class on the evils of these sins, while being a part
\nof an association which promotes these sins?\u00bb<\/P><\/p>\n
\nperhaps the end of a career; financial hardship for the family.<\/P><\/p>\n
\ndenying the gospel. I have had clients who believed that their eternal life was at stake if they continued
\nto support the union.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nfish you catch, open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it
\nto them for my tax and yours. (NIV)<\/P><\/p>\n
\nproblem is fishing. <\/P><\/p>\n
\nreligious objectors. First, Christ says \u00abDon’t give offense.\u00bb By this I understand Him to say, \u00abGo along
\nwith them as far as your conscience permits.\u00bb Second, Christ does not compromise the underlying
\nprinciple: His position as the Son of God. He reaffirms who He is by performing a miracle. The miracle
\nprovides the payment.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nthem to go fishing. However, I think we satisfy both guiding principles in this story with the charity
\nsubstitution payment. <\/P><\/p>\n
\npaying union fees to the union, the religious objector pays the amount of the union fees to a mutually
\nagreed upon charity. <\/P><\/p>\n
\nare morally deficient. Religious objectors cannot pay the union fees to the union because that would
\nviolate their conscience. Paying the union fees to charity not only satisfies the union’s claim that
\neveryone must pay, it also keeps the client’s conscience clear. The religious objector has gone as far
\nalong the union’s suggested path as possible without compromising the underlying principle.<\/P><\/p>\n
\npayment is supported by the law.<\/P><\/p>\n
\narise overnight. Some of the principles were established before I started litigating these claims (which
\nwas 21 years ago). The earliest cases arose in the 70’s and early 80’s and involved employees who were
\nmembers of churches which had specific church doctrines prohibiting union membership.(3)<\/SUP><\/A><\/EM> These cases
\ngenerally involved Seventh-day Adventists, who have a doctrine proscribing union membership.(4)<\/SUP><\/A><\/EM><\/P><\/p>\n
\ncharity substitution doctrine came in a case entitled IAM v. Boeing,<\/EM> 833 F.2d 165 (9th Cir. 1987) cert.
\ndenied <\/EM>485 U.S. 1014 (1988). The religious objector in Boeing<\/EM>, an employee named Josephine Nichols,
\nhad the same deeply held religious beliefs as Seventh-day Adventists. She could not be a member of any
\nlabor union. She was not, however, an Adventist. In fact, she wasn’t even a member of the church that
\nshe had regularly attended for 20 years. <\/P><\/p>\n
\nthat she was entitled to the charity substitution accommodation based purely upon her personal religious
\nbeliefs: even though she was not a member of any church.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nF.2d 331 (6th Cir. 1990). The University of Detroit is a Jesuit institution. The religious objector in that
\ncase, Dr. Robert Roesser, was a member of the university faculty and a member of the Catholic church.
\nAffiliates of the National Education Association represented the faculty at the university. <\/P><\/p>\n
\nlobbies. Dr. Roesser could not, consistent with his religious beliefs, join the union or pay any of the
\nunion fee flowing to the NEA and its state affiliate. He asked for an accommodation, and the university
\nand union refused. The doctor suffered discharge rather than compromise his conscience.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nsignificant ways. First, Dr. Roesser did not have a per se<\/EM> objection to labor unions. He could even have
\nbeen a member of the NEA if it had not taken a pro-abortion position. Second, and worse, the Catholic
\nchurch has historically been regarded as promoting unions. <\/P><\/p>\n
\nproper focus of inquiry. Since Dr. Roesser’s individual beliefs prevented him from associating with the
\nNEA and his state affiliate, the court determined he was entitled to an accommodation which would
\nallow him to redirect his money somewhere else.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nmoney to the offending union. The good news is that this is the litigation position of the Equal
\nEmployment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). I know of six cases in which the EEOC has been in
\ncourt defending this principle. Four of those cases were mine , and the fifth was handled by a lawyer in
\nmy office. <\/P><\/p>\n
\nsubstitution principle even when only personal religious belief is at stake. I find that some affiliates are
\nsometimes less than forthright in dealing with religious objectors. I find that some affiliates sometimes
\nstonewall religious objectors when they ask for an accommodation. But if the religious objector insists,
\nthe affiliate will accommodate and will not let the case get into court. A shining example of an NEA
\naffiliate who consistently does the right thing right away is the Illinois Education Association. Shining
\nexamples of problem affiliates are the NEA-Alaska and the California Teachers Association. (Although
\nneither one is consistently a problem.)<\/P><\/p>\n
\npreserving the conscience, and protecting freedom. When do we get to the juicy part:<\/P><\/p>\n
\nmind. I use the short-hand term \u00abpolitical objectors\u00bb to describe the rest of the objectors. <\/P><\/p>\n
\nfor a minute and look generally at politics today. I doubt that many would dispute the fact that organized
\nlabor is the domestic financial engine of the Democratic party. (The foreign financial engine appears to
\nbe centered in Asia, but the documentation for this is incomplete.) According to figures reported by the
\nFederal Election Commission (and reproduced in the Statistical Abstract of the United States of 1995),
\nunion political action committees spent just under 95 million dollars on politics.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nto PAC contributions, unions make what is known as \u00abin kind\u00bb contributions to political candidates and
\ncauses. An example of an \u00abin kind\u00bb contribution is telling a union employee that he can go work on the
\ncampaign of a political candidate instead of his usual union work for the next few months. Printing up
\nbrochures for a candidate is another example. Organizing a phone bank for a candidate is an \u00abin kind\u00bb
\ncontribution. In fact, I am told that even some of these examples might not even rise to the level of being
\ncalled \u00abin kind\u00bb contributions.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nOversight Committee on March 21, 1996. In that testimony, Professor Troy estimated that in a
\npresidential election year, union \u00abin kind\u00bb contributions can be as much as 500 million dollars out of the
\nestimated 600 billion dollars that unions receive annually in dues.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nlike real money to me. It certainly dwarfs the 35 million figure the AFL-CIO spoke about during the last
\nelection cycle.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nvulnerable. It is vulnerable because of our litigation on behalf of employees who object to being
\ncompelled to support union politics against their will.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nemployee’s view, is that unions are the only institution (other than the government) which can force
\nsupport. No matter how much good the Salvation Army does, no matter how much good Focus on the
\nFamily does, no matter how much good your local church does, they do not have the power to force their
\nhand into your pocket for reimbursement. Normally, this pick-pocket stuff is considered a crime. So,
\nthe employees who call me generally think it is unfair that they should be forced to join or support a
\nlabor union.<\/P>
\n
\nAn address by Bruce N. Cameron, J.D.
\n
Attorney, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation
\nDelivered to the Christian Educators Association
\nJuly 3, 1997
\n<\/b>
\n
\nthe AFL-CIO, Bob Chase, the President of the National Education Association, and Ron Carey, the
\nPresident of the Teamsters union, decided to take the train.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nnot the tycoon of the train unions for nothin’.\u00bb So he bought a single train ticket –just one– for all three
\nof them.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nnext to them. The working guys recognized the union chiefs and noticed they had only one ticket among
\nthe three of them, so they asked, \u00abHow are all three of you going on the train with just one ticket?\u00bb<\/P><\/p>\n
\nbathroom and they all squeezed into one stall. Pretty soon the ticket-collector came to the door of the
\nstall, calling out \u00abtickets, tickets please.\u00bb Sweeney opened the door a crack and stuck out his one ticket.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nThis time the three working guys had only one ticket among them. As they looked over at the union
\nbosses, not one of them had a ticket. \u00abWait a minute,\u00bb one of the workers said, \u00abwe understand now how
\nyou three were able to ride on one ticket, but how do you do it with no ticket?\u00bb<\/P><\/p>\n
\nThe union chiefs did the same in the stall next door. A few minutes later Sweeney slipped out of his stall
\nand called out, \u00abtickets, tickets please.\u00bb<\/P><\/p>\n
\nunion officials want, or worse, have <\/EM>something of yours that does not belong to them? Do you think they
\nare tricking you out of your money? Maybe they are just threatening you to part with your money?<\/P><\/p>\n
\nwho object to being forced to join or financially support a labor union.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nwhat is yours; and refuse to have your money used to support principles, ideas and policies that are
\ndirectly opposed to your beliefs.<\/P><\/p>\n
\n21 of them(1)<\/SUP><\/A>) you can decide to pay the union nothing. The only exceptions are for employees who work
\nin the railroad and airline industries, and those who work on certain federal enclaves.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nunion takes a bit longer. Draw a mental picture of a big circle. Included in that big circle are all kinds of
\nobjections to unions. Inside the big circle of all objectors is a much smaller circle of a special kind of
\nreligious objector. These religious objectors have special rights. Since this is the Christian Educators
\nAssociation, let’s start with the religious objectors and what better place to start than with a Bible story.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nthis in Capernaum, Peter missed fishing. Soon he was lost in thought about the \u00abbig one\u00bb that didn’t get
\naway.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nappeared on the porch next to him. Peter thought they looked like drachma collectors.<\/P><\/p>\n
\n\u00abfistfuls\u00bb– of money, that is. The drachma collectors were out gathering the temple tax which every
\nadult, male, Jew was required to pay.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nSo just as Peter was standing there, wishing he were fishing, the drachma collectors presented him with a
\ntrick question. That question, found in the gospel of Matthew 17:24 was:<\/P><\/p>\n
\nimplications of such a question. One who dodges taxes is dishonest. Perhaps disloyal. Taxes to support
\nthe temple inject religious questions. So perhaps one who dodges temple taxes does not adhere to the
\nhighest religious standards. At the very minimum a tax dodger is cheap. So in Matthew 17:25 Peter gives
\nthe obvious answer: \u00abYes, of course, my master pays the temple tax.\u00bb<\/P><\/p>\n
\nquestions for me are all hypothetical questions because I don’t control my money. Do you know the
\nstandard marriage vows have this phrase, \u00abI pledge my troth?\u00bb Do you know what a \u00abtroth\u00bb is? When I
\nwas 23 I didn’t. I asked my wife-to-be what it was that I was pledging. She said, \u00abDarling, troth means
\ntreasure.\u00bb So they made that little substitution in my vows.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nmoney. There he found, to his amazement, that the drachma collectors were not the only ones interested
\nin discussing taxes with him. Matthew 17:25 says:<\/P><\/p>\n
\nSimon\u00bb He asked, \u00abfrom whom do the kings of the earth collect taxes — from their own
\nsons or from others?\u00bb (NIV*)<\/P><\/p>\n
\nbelieved that Jesus was the Son of the Living God ( 16:16). He knew that the temple was God’s
\nsanctuary among men. He knew that sons were normally exempt from taxation by their fathers. This
\nproblem could give him a headache. Suddenly, more than ever, he felt he would rather be fishing. <\/P><\/p>\n
\nnot pay the temple tax. For Him to pay the tax would be to acknowledge that He was not the Son of God.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nrequires them to either join the teachers union, generally the National Education Association (NEA), or
\npay fees to support the union. The drachma collectors come to these teachers and they make these same
\nkind of arguments: the teachers are told that if they fail to pay they are dishonest, disloyal or maybe just
\ncheap. Unfortunately, it does not stop with the \u00absticks and stones\u00bb kind of approach. They are also told
\nthat if they do not pay they will be fired.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nissues are at stake in the payment of these union fees. Teachers phone me all the time and say, \u00abDo you
\nknow that the NEA is pro-abortion? Do you know that the NEA promotes the homosexual life-style?
\nDo you know that the NEA attacks what I believe in, calling my Christian views ‘right-wing
\nextremism?'\u00bb(2)<\/SUP><\/A> They ask, \u00abHow can I support both sides of these issues? On Sunday I hear that support
\nfor these activities is sin. The following Monday I read a report in the union newsletter that I am paying
\nfor those activities. How can I teach my Sunday school class on the evils of these sins, while being a part
\nof an association which promotes these sins?\u00bb<\/P><\/p>\n
\nperhaps the end of a career; financial hardship for the family.<\/P><\/p>\n
\ndenying the gospel. I have had clients who believed that their eternal life was at stake if they continued
\nto support the union.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nfish you catch, open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it
\nto them for my tax and yours. (NIV)<\/P><\/p>\n
\nproblem is fishing. <\/P><\/p>\n
\nreligious objectors. First, Christ says \u00abDon’t give offense.\u00bb By this I understand Him to say, \u00abGo along
\nwith them as far as your conscience permits.\u00bb Second, Christ does not compromise the underlying
\nprinciple: His position as the Son of God. He reaffirms who He is by performing a miracle. The miracle
\nprovides the payment.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nthem to go fishing. However, I think we satisfy both guiding principles in this story with the charity
\nsubstitution payment. <\/P><\/p>\n
\npaying union fees to the union, the religious objector pays the amount of the union fees to a mutually
\nagreed upon charity. <\/P><\/p>\n
\nare morally deficient. Religious objectors cannot pay the union fees to the union because that would
\nviolate their conscience. Paying the union fees to charity not only satisfies the union’s claim that
\neveryone must pay, it also keeps the client’s conscience clear. The religious objector has gone as far
\nalong the union’s suggested path as possible without compromising the underlying principle.<\/P><\/p>\n
\npayment is supported by the law.<\/P><\/p>\n
\narise overnight. Some of the principles were established before I started litigating these claims (which
\nwas 21 years ago). The earliest cases arose in the 70’s and early 80’s and involved employees who were
\nmembers of churches which had specific church doctrines prohibiting union membership.(3)<\/SUP><\/A><\/EM> These cases
\ngenerally involved Seventh-day Adventists, who have a doctrine proscribing union membership.(4)<\/SUP><\/A><\/EM><\/P><\/p>\n
\ncharity substitution doctrine came in a case entitled IAM v. Boeing,<\/EM> 833 F.2d 165 (9th Cir. 1987) cert.
\ndenied <\/EM>485 U.S. 1014 (1988). The religious objector in Boeing<\/EM>, an employee named Josephine Nichols,
\nhad the same deeply held religious beliefs as Seventh-day Adventists. She could not be a member of any
\nlabor union. She was not, however, an Adventist. In fact, she wasn’t even a member of the church that
\nshe had regularly attended for 20 years. <\/P><\/p>\n
\nthat she was entitled to the charity substitution accommodation based purely upon her personal religious
\nbeliefs: even though she was not a member of any church.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nF.2d 331 (6th Cir. 1990). The University of Detroit is a Jesuit institution. The religious objector in that
\ncase, Dr. Robert Roesser, was a member of the university faculty and a member of the Catholic church.
\nAffiliates of the National Education Association represented the faculty at the university. <\/P><\/p>\n
\nlobbies. Dr. Roesser could not, consistent with his religious beliefs, join the union or pay any of the
\nunion fee flowing to the NEA and its state affiliate. He asked for an accommodation, and the university
\nand union refused. The doctor suffered discharge rather than compromise his conscience.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nsignificant ways. First, Dr. Roesser did not have a per se<\/EM> objection to labor unions. He could even have
\nbeen a member of the NEA if it had not taken a pro-abortion position. Second, and worse, the Catholic
\nchurch has historically been regarded as promoting unions. <\/P><\/p>\n
\nproper focus of inquiry. Since Dr. Roesser’s individual beliefs prevented him from associating with the
\nNEA and his state affiliate, the court determined he was entitled to an accommodation which would
\nallow him to redirect his money somewhere else.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nmoney to the offending union. The good news is that this is the litigation position of the Equal
\nEmployment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). I know of six cases in which the EEOC has been in
\ncourt defending this principle. Four of those cases were mine , and the fifth was handled by a lawyer in
\nmy office. <\/P><\/p>\n
\nsubstitution principle even when only personal religious belief is at stake. I find that some affiliates are
\nsometimes less than forthright in dealing with religious objectors. I find that some affiliates sometimes
\nstonewall religious objectors when they ask for an accommodation. But if the religious objector insists,
\nthe affiliate will accommodate and will not let the case get into court. A shining example of an NEA
\naffiliate who consistently does the right thing right away is the Illinois Education Association. Shining
\nexamples of problem affiliates are the NEA-Alaska and the California Teachers Association. (Although
\nneither one is consistently a problem.)<\/P><\/p>\n
\npreserving the conscience, and protecting freedom. When do we get to the juicy part:<\/P><\/p>\n
\nmind. I use the short-hand term \u00abpolitical objectors\u00bb to describe the rest of the objectors. <\/P><\/p>\n
\nfor a minute and look generally at politics today. I doubt that many would dispute the fact that organized
\nlabor is the domestic financial engine of the Democratic party. (The foreign financial engine appears to
\nbe centered in Asia, but the documentation for this is incomplete.) According to figures reported by the
\nFederal Election Commission (and reproduced in the Statistical Abstract of the United States of 1995),
\nunion political action committees spent just under 95 million dollars on politics.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nyou live in a Right to Work state. (Like where we are right now — the great Commonwealth of Virginia.)<\/P><\/p>\n
\nemployees tell me and it is consistent with state Right to Work laws. The Foundation believes that no
\nemployee should be forced to contribute any money to a union against his will.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nDetroit Board of Education,<\/EM> 431 U.S. 209 (1977). We gave the Supreme Court two arguments. First,
\nwe said employees should be completely free to choose whether they support a labor union. There
\nshould be no forced payment for forced representation. Second, we said if you disagree with us, you
\nshould at least agree that employees should not be forced to support the union’s political agenda.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nno one can be forced to support the union’s politics. Abood<\/EM> set the precedent for all public employees. <\/P><\/p>\n
\nemployees in the United States: those covered by the Railway Labor Act (railway and airline employees)
\nand those covered by the National Labor Relations Act (private sector employees). Those two cases, Ellis
\nv. BRAC,<\/EM> 466 U.S. 435 (1984) and Communications Workers v. Beck,<\/EM> 487 U.S. 735 (1988) established
\nthat no employee could be required to support the political agenda of any union.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nemployee in the United States. We also nailed to the wall every union whose officials thought they had
\nsome sort of right to use your money to support their pet political agenda.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nfrom Maine? I was sort of lost. Guys are never really lost, right?. It might take an hour of driving
\naround to realize where we are, but we are not<\/EM> lost. While driving, I noticed something unique with the
\nroad system in this part of Maine. The road signs tell you what street or road you are crossing (generally
\na minor road), but they do not tell you the name of the main road you are on! <\/P><\/p>\n
\nlocation. In desperation, we finally pulled over for directions. A local fellow in a store told us we were
\non the right road and we should continue on the road and turn at \u00abDevil’s Hill.\u00bb We drove the direction
\nhe said, but we never saw any sign, or anything else, that said \u00abDevils Hill.\u00bb Finally, we drove back to
\nthe same store, saw the same fellow, and told him that although we were not lost, we could not find any
\nsign for \u00abDevil’s Hill.\u00bb \u00abOh,\u00bb he laughed, \u00abthat is just what we locals call the place. I guess there is no
\nsign.\u00bb<\/P><\/p>\n
\nspecific directions so you can better understand your rights and not \u00abget lost.\u00bb I’m talking now about all
\nobjectors– except religious objectors. The procedure for religious objectors is a bit more complicated
\nand is explained in a booklet that I wrote. I have several more booklets with me that I’ll be glad to give
\nyou for free.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nmember, the unions say, \u00abHey, you’ve agreed to support our politics.\u00bb So if you do not agree, and want
\nto get your money back, you need to resign.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nmoney before it can ask you for any of your money. This is really an amazing thing. The union can keep
\nits own members in the dark about how it spends their money, but if it wants money from nonmembers it
\nhas to cough up an audited statement of its finances. I remember a case I had years ago in which I was
\ntaking the deposition of a union officer. I asked him why he had not given my (nonmember) client
\nfinancial information about the union. \u00abWhy should we give it to her,\u00bb he protested, \u00abwhen they don’t
\neven give it to me!\u00bb<\/P><\/p>\n
\nfrom another case we won before the Supreme Court: Chicago Teachers Local 1 v. Hudson,<\/EM> 475 U.S.
\n292 (1986). Here is the logic behind Hudson<\/EM>. Let’s say that union dues are $200 a year. The union tells
\nnonmembers that the nonmember fee, the agency fee, is $150 a year. How would you know if $150 was
\nright? Do you have to trust union officials to correctly calculate the collective bargaining costs?<\/P><\/p>\n
\nSupreme Court said essentially the same thing. This does not have to be a matter of trusting the union.
\nInstead, the union has to give you \u00abverified\u00bb — and by that I believe they meant audited — financial
\ninformation so you can make your own judgment on whether the union’s fee claim is about right.<\/P><\/p>\n
\ndecision. If you look at the union’s numbers and finally decide you don’t care, or if you think the fee
\nclaim is about right, that is the end of it. You pay what the union claims is chargeable. Various unions
\nhave different twists to their procedures. Generally, you have to object to pay the reduced fee (as
\ncalculated by the union). If you make your wishes known to the union, you pay the reduced fee and keep
\nthe rest in your pocket. The union has to find someone else to pay for its politics that you just refused to
\nsupport.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nmake the union prove its fee claim. In Hudson<\/EM>, another requirement the Supreme Court placed upon
\nunions is that they must tell you that you are entitled to a hearing if you think the union’s numbers are
\nwrong.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nknow you think its calculations are wrong, is the key to this hearing. With most unions you do not get
\nany reduction unless you object. No union will undertake the burden of proving its fee claims unless you
\nobject.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nYou do not have to explain yourself. You do not have to be right. All you have to do is say, \u00abI object. I
\nthink you are charging me too much, and I only want to pay for collective bargaining, and not for
\npolitics.\u00bb<\/P><\/p>\n
\nprove that its agency fee numbers are correct. Until the union proves this number, the union does not get
\nyour money. That is right. Your money stays in an escrow account until the union proves its fee claims.
\nThis is another requirement the Supreme Court placed upon unions in Hudson<\/EM>. The union has to tell you
\nabout your right to have the money safely in escrow while the union goes about proving its fee claim.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nportion of the fee, then that amount goes to the union. By the same token, any amount that the union
\nagrees was used for politics goes to you. So it is just the disputed money that is held in escrow.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nobvious first step is to look at what kind of expenses the union claims are chargeable to you. The
\ngeneral standard is that the union can charge you for collective bargaining expenses, but cannot charge
\nyou for political expenses.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nHowever, we have gotten decisions from the Supreme Court which help to paint the picture of what
\nconstitutes collective bargaining and what constitutes politics. Let me just give you a \u00abthumb-nail
\nsketch\u00bb of what is chargeable and what is not. <\/P><\/p>\n
\nSupreme Court has essentially said that if the union passes some low evidentiary hurdles, collective
\nbargaining anywhere is chargeable. By that I mean that teachers in Massachusetts can be forced to help
\ndefray the NEA’s collective bargaining expenses in Alaska. (Go figure that! This point is one we battled
\nto the bitter end.)<\/P><\/p>\n
\nonly lobbying that is chargeable is lobbying required to approve your contract or give specific funding
\nfor your contract. Lobbying on general tax increases, even when it goes to fund the schools, is not
\nchargeable to teachers.<\/P><\/p>\n
\non behalf of your bargaining unit.<\/P><\/p>\n
\norganizing expenses and some labor boards have refused to follow Supreme Court precedent.)<\/P><\/p>\n
\nanswer period.<\/P><\/p>\n
\npolitical objector save? When we started litigating these cases, the unions treated this like a joke. It
\nreminds me of some of these \u00ablife-time\u00bb warranties I see in large-print on product packages in the stores.
\nHave you seen these? You buy a $5.00 -10.00 set of wiper blades and the package says, \u00abLife-time
\nwarranty.\u00bb Then you open the package and it says if the product is defective, send them the product and
\na check for $6.50 to cover \u00abshipping and handling\u00bb and they will send you new wipers. This is not a
\n\u00ablife-time\u00bb warranty. This is a life-time offer to keep buying defective wipers for $6.50!<\/P><\/p>\n
\nrebate if you mailed your objection to them, certified, return receipt requested. Thus, it cost $2.00 to get
\nback 50 cents.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nproven by unions ranges from 10-20%. That means you get to keep 80-90% of dues. When we litigate
\nbefore state labor boards, the unions are found to have proven a fee of 50-70%. That means you get to
\nkeep 30-50% of dues.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nFoundation is in the wings ready to file suit, results in unions today being much more reasonable in their
\ninitial agency fee claims. Take for example, the National Education Association. I think we have sued
\nthe NEA more than any other union. The NEA initially sets its agency fee at about 70% of dues.
\nSometimes it dips under 70%. The NEA’s state affiliates generally claim a higher fee.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nTeachers Association (CTA), they set the total agency fee (including the NEA, CTA and local) at about
\n63% of union dues.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nunion saying, \u00abI object,\u00bb gets about a $200 rebate from the union. No separate litigation is required.
\nRemember, this is just the union’s initial claim. Presumably, if we litigated the 63% with them, it would
\neven be lower.<\/P><\/p>\n
\nInternational Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Bible Publisher’s.<\/P><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\nAn address by Bruce N. Cameron, J.D.
\n
Attorney, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation
\nDelivered to the Christian Educators Association<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","template":"","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-2022","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\n