**Washington, DC (June 14, 2006)** \u2014 Responding to a 6-3 Washington State Supreme Court ruling striking down a state law requirement that union officials obtain the prior consent of nonunion public employees before spending mandatory union dues for politics, the National Right to Work Foundation filed an appeal yesterday with the U.S. Supreme Court on First Amendment grounds.<\/p>\n
Foundation attorneys \u2013 working jointly with Steven O\u2019Ban of Ellis, Li, and McKinstry of Seattle \u2013 originally filed the suit, *Davenport v. Washington Education Association (WEA)*, for more than 4,000 Washington teachers who are not union members, but nonetheless forced to pay union dues or fees. Thurston County Superior Court Judge Daniel Berschauer ruled that the teachers had an implied right of action under Initiative-134 to recover the fees the WEA had used \u2013 without their authorization \u2013 for political purposes. The trial court also certified the case as a class action for the thousands of nonmember teachers.<\/p>\n
But a long-awaited ruling in Davenport by the State Supreme Court in mid-March upheld an appellate court\u2019s decision to overturn the trial court \u2013 thereby striking down the last remaining union dues provisions in I-134, Washington\u2019s troubled \u201cpaycheck protection\u201d law. <\/p>\n
The State Supreme Court\u2019s ruling directly conflicts with a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, noted Justice Richard B. Sanders\u2019 three-member dissent. Justice Sanders said: \u201cThe majority turns the First Amendment on its head. . . . [T]he suggestion that a legislative choice to protect dissenting nonmembers by requiring affirmative authorization before using their agency shop fees to influence an election . . . violates the First Amendment . . . \u2018borders on the frivolous.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n
Though the Foundation believes the decision is wrongheaded, the ruling brings into focus how difficult the paycheck protection regulatory approach is, and how ineffective it has been in protecting employees laboring under forced unionism. Even if the Supreme Court had reinstated the Thurston County court\u2019s rulings, I-134 would still only result in individual refunds of $10 per year, on average. Substantially greater relief is available to teachers under a settlement of a First Amendment lawsuit brought earlier by Foundation attorneys. Under that settlement, nonmember teachers may annually object and reclaim more than $200 each. Ultimately, however, only the passage of a Right to Work law in Washington would ensure that union dues are not misused.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe real solution is to attack forced unionism at its root, rather than try to regulate its ill effects,\u201d said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. \u201cThe Foundation has no choice but to help mop up the damage to the First Amendment being caused by courts responding to these \u2018paycheck protection\u2019 laws.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
**Washington, DC (June 14, 2006)** \u2014 Responding to a 6-3 Washington State Supreme Court ruling striking down a state law requirement that union officials obtain the prior consent of nonunion public employees before spending mandatory union dues for politics, the National Right to Work Foundation filed an appeal yesterday with the U.S. Supreme Court on […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[888],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2309","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"yoast_head":"\n