The media, progressive politicians’ and politicized unions’ heads are spinning…
In a momentous 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that public sector union members cannot be forced to pay union dues that:
- Violate their religious beliefs
- Violate their political beliefs
- Violate their First Amendment right to freely choose who they associate with and support
This ruling is a game-changer on many levels for politics in America.
Here are 7 stunning realities you should know about this case … and about the ruling of the Court:
- The ruling is a victory for freedom of choice.
The issue in the Supreme Court case, Janus v. AFSCME, was whether it is constitutional for state governments to require state employees to pay union fees as a condition of employment … even if they opt not to join the union.
The Court overruled its own 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education.
Public employees will now enjoy the same First Amendment right as everyone else: the right to decide for themselves which causes, organizations and political candidates they want to support.
- The ruling is a victory for stopping political corruption.
Consider these facts:
- Public employee unions contributed approximately $166 million to political campaigns during the 2016 election cycle.
- Money donated to politicians buys political influence.
- The politicians who accept donations from public employee unions have to later negotiate with those unions regarding pay and benefit increases.
- The ruling is a victory for taxpayers.
All taxpayers are impacted by the collective bargaining activities of public employee unions.
When unions ask for pay raises and benefit increases, state and local budgets are affected…
And these budgets are funded with taxpayer dollars.
So, when public employee unions demand more for government employees, everyone’s taxes are increased.
- The ruling directly covers 5 million local, county, state and federal employees, including police, firefighters and teachers in 22 states.
Since 1977, these employees have been forced to pay “agency fees” to their public sector union even when they declined to join the union.
The rationale was that they benefited from union collective bargaining activities conducted on their behalf.
But union-negotiated public-employee contracts often include policy issues such as merit-based pay, policies and procedures for disciplinary action or termination, and more.
The Court concluded that “because the compelled subsidization of private speech seriously impinges on First Amendments rights, it cannot be casually allowed.”
- Danger: Progressive politicians in states like California and New York will try to counteract the ruling with new legislation.
The unions will attack, strike, bully, confuse, lie, create work around…
Two bills in Maryland, for example, seek to undermine public employees’ privacy and require captive-audience meetings where the union can lobby new hires to join.
In Hawaii, legislators want to create a collective bargaining fund for public employees using taxpayer dollars.
- The progressive media is distorting the truth of the ruling.
CNN minimized the impact of the ruling in the case, claiming that it only applies to home health care workers in the state of Illinois – the home state of Mark Janus, the plaintiff in the case.
This is simply not true.
MSNBC has been virtually silent regarding the ruling.
- The ruling ends the practice of “Closed Shop.”
Under the previous precedent, public employees risked being fired if they objected to paying union agency fees.
Now, all government employees in all 50 states have the freedom to decide whether paying a union – without knowing what the payments are being used for – is something they voluntarily want to do.
Compelling employees to support political speech they oppose violates the First Amendment.
Thomas Jefferson perhaps said it best: “To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
Watch this short Fox News interview with Judge Andrew Napolitano regarding the impact of this ruling on Democrats’ political agenda (2:20):
What do you think? Write me at email@example.com