Feb 25
For Your Information…
2009 at 3:49 pm | posted by Rep. Craig Frank 6 comments
The Utah Taxpayers Association released the following statement I thought you might be interested in…
Victory for taxpayers, teachers: U.S. Supreme Court
upholds paycheck protection
A 6-3 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that taxpayers
can no longer be compelled to collect political contributions for
public employee unions. The court upheld state bans on political
payroll deductions, declaring that they do not infringe the unions’
First Amendment rights. The ruling explained that the First
Amendment does not impose an obligation on government to subsidize
union speech.
This decision ends the era in which teacher unions have the biggest
political action committees in the states, which have enabled the
in legislative and school board elections.
The ruling also means that teachers and other public employees
have a right to their paychecks. Paycheck protection plans like
Utah’s require that unions obtain explicit permission from their
members before they collect political money from them.
In Ysursa v. Pocatello Education Association, the Court upheld
paycheck protection laws in Idaho and Ohio. This ruling means
Utah’s paycheck protection law, passed in 2001, immediately
takes effect.
“In these tough economic times, this decision is a huge victory
for teachers and public employees, said M. Royce Van Tassell,
vice president of the Utah Taxpayers Association. “Now Utah
teachers and other public employees can put food on the table,
instead of being forced to fund the union’s liberal political
agenda.”
When Utah unions had to obtain this explicit permission, the UEA
PAC’s, fundraising fell 75%, and the Utah Public Empoyee
Association PAC’s fundraising dropped to zero.
Because paycheck protection is so important, the Utah Taxpayers
Association filed a brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear
the case, and another brief, urging the court to uphold paycheck
protection laws.
“Free speech wins again,” said Maxwell Miller, the attorney with
Parsons Behle & Latimer who wrote and submitted the Taxpayers
Association’s amicus brief. “Unions can no longer use fear and
intimidation to force employees to support a political agenda
they disagree with.
February 25th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
I don’t know that this comes across as noble as they think it does. Kind of petty really.
They are members. If they are members, they pay their dues. Now they have to use a stamp to do it. And in this age of easy electronic funds transfers, there are much better ways to collect than payroll deductions anyway.
You go, UTA! Isn’t there something more productive they could be doing with their time?
February 25th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
you guys just can’t wait to jump on anyone that was anti voucher can you. i mean at a certain point don’t you have to just admit that vouchers were voted down by the people of the state and let it go?
also for someone that’s so concerned about people taking home their paychecks, why haven’t you looked into repealing this regressive tax system you’ve set up in the state? it certainly doesn’t seem to be helping revenue wise, and the old system made it easier for people to put food on the table (no, the rich aren’t struggling to put food on their table).
February 26th, 2009 at 11:53 am
I find it interesting that both comments link back to the same website.
This has nothing to do with vouchers. The Supreme Court decision deals with an Idaho case that has applicability to Utah as well. It affects a law Utah passed but had to put on hold in 2001, BEFORE the big voucher/school choice battles. Hardly some weird voucher conspiracy.
I think it’s great and very appropriate – why should a national organization that I don’t agree with dictate that part of my paycheck go to them? There are actually multiple organizations that might have thought about employing such tactics – the Utah Nurse’s Association, for example – but who have not. The UEA did (not UTA). They do not speak for many, many teachers in this state and should not be able to employ strong-arm tactics to reach into teacher’s pocketbooks and take “dues”. The US Supreme Court agrees. End of discussion.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Those nasty US Supreme Court justices ruled on a case from Pocatello Idaho just to get back at Utah for not passing the voucher law? There’s some logic.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
This is the biggest load of crap I have ever read. Especially this:
“In these tough economic times, this decision is a huge victory
for teachers and public employees, said M. Royce Van Tassell,
vice president of the Utah Taxpayers Association. “Now Utah
teachers and other public employees can put food on the table,
instead of being forced to fund the union’s liberal political
agenda.”
Teachers and public employees are at the mercy of the Utah Legislature for funding their classrooms, programs, and salaries. The only tool that these employees have is the political contributions to support candidates who truly support the needs of public education and to lobby for needed legislation.
This law is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to make it more difficult for the UEA and the UPEA to raise money to help those in the minority party in Utah to be elected and represent their needs. The GOP in Utah presently has virtually unlimited and unchecked power to run the state, and yet they are greedy for more. How much fatter can the elephant get?
HollyontheHill is sadly out of touch with reality when she indicates that the Utah Education Association could ever dictate that part of her paycheck go to them. First of all Utah is a Right to Work State and union membership is entirely voluntary. If you don’t agree with the organization you simply choose not to become a member and you don’t pay dues. Even if you are a dues paying member, paying an additional amount to go to a PAC (political action committee) is entirely voluntary. Each teacher is given a form to fill out and sign indicating the amount they wish to voluntarily contribute which is separate from the Association’s dues. Having that PAC contribution withdrawn along with the monthly Association dues is simply a convenience for the teacher.
Teacher’s are also given the opportunity to contribute to several charitable organizations through payroll deduction such as United Way. The “cost” to the state is negligible to pay for the seconds it takes the secretary in the payroll office type in the automatic withdrawal amounts in each category for each employee.
This is certainly political payback. Not for vouchers, but for the 1 day walkout the teachers held prior to 2001 when this law was enacted. If the majority of the UEA’s PAC money went to support Republican candidates and the Republican education agenda there would have been no so called “Paycheck Protection Law” ever passed and we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
March 19th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
[...] ultimate deciderer is a Supreme Court as to whether a law stands up to constitutional scrutiny. Here’s a good example. So, there’s really no way to test my hypothesis until this law is challenged…if [...]