Tuesday, October 07, 2014


How would you react if your employer informed you he would be taking a modest cut from your paycheck each month for his political action committee? What if he told you that if you try to opt out of this arrangement he'd hassle you and might fight you all the way to the Supreme Court?

Did you know that labor unions already do this? And for the most part, they have been getting away with it. That's why it's heartening to see a new report, from the Washington Examiner's Sean Higgins, that Republicans plan to take up federal labor law if they win the Senate in next month's elections.

Legal precedent has for three decades supposedly guaranteed the First Amendment rights of nonunion workers — who are nonetheless required to pay dues — to avoid subsidizing Big Labor's political drives. But Knox v. SEIU, which ended in a 2012 Supreme Court decision, demonstrates how this guarantee often fails in practice.

In 2005, SEIU abruptly raised its dues for the California public employees it represented for the explicit purpose of creating a $12 million campaign fund to defeat two state ballot measures. The union offered no opportunity for workers to opt out of contributing, unless they sought a refund the following year.

It took the better part of a decade for the public employees who sued the union to have their First Amendment freedom of association vindicated. At one stage, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals tried to invalidate their rights altogether in favor of a supposed union right to collect their money.

Republicans now want to fix this gross injustice by means of an Employee Rights Act if they take control of the Senate. The bill would require unions to get members' affirmative permission to use their money for political activity. Workers who support union political drives could still contribute, but workers who want union representation, or who have been forced to accept it against their will, would be protected from funding causes they dislike.

The bill would also force unions to show their members how their money is being spent. Most political expenditures go under the radar and are reported only long after elections are over, and even then only in opaque annual filings with the Department of Labor. When the Wall Street Journal scrutinized these reports in 2012, it found union political spending to be about four times greater than what was then believed.

Democrats in Washington have made a fuss recently about big money and so-called dark money in elections. Last month, 49 Democratic senators actually voted to weaken the First Amendment to halt the supposedly corrupting influence of money on politics. Yes, they would actually amend the Bill of Rights to blunt the influence of private donors who don't share their views. One might take their bleating seriously on this matter if they first acknowledged the egregious wrong of forcing workers to fund political spending out of their paychecks.

I posted every word of that Examiner story, so you will easily see that "Beck"  in not mentioned al all.  WTF?  Nada.  The landmark 1988 Beck decision, in a nutshell, forced unions to get specific authorization from each member before they could spend their portion of dues on political activities.  It also stipulated that notices to that effect be placed in the work place so all members were aware of that right.  By the by, that decison was made by  some of the most liberal judges in the courts history.  To wit:

BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., and WHITE, THURGOOD MARSHALL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined, and in Parts I and II of which HARRY  BLACKMUN, O'CONNOR, and SCALIA, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, J., filed an opinion concurring in part [source]

Needless to say, unions were none too happy.  So, they did what liberals always do with court decisions and law they don't like.  They ignored it, and nobody did anything about it.

Here's the beginning of a post I made in 2006 about the continued noncomplience of unions.  Nothing has changed.

Shakespeare kept a copy of Nostradamus at his bedside, which probably accounts for the passage, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers turned judge by Carter and Clinton." That's the famous passage as it appeared in the draft manuscript of King Henry VI. The Bard, however, feared that high school students would be put off by so enigmatic a reference, so it was altered.

Too bad.

Nearly a 20 years ago the U. S. Supreme Court established what are now known as "Beck rights" in the landmark decision Communication Workers v. Beck.1 Beck rights dictate that workers cannot be forced under union contracts to pay any dues or fees beyond those necessary for the performance of the union's employee representation duties.¹. To that end, employers were supposed to post notices so employees would be made aware, and know where they could report violations [Etc].

When Van Jones Speaks ...

'Ebola Is a Great Argument for Big Government'
Former Discredited Obama "Czar"  Van Jones

"We can't let the Republicans get away with some of the stuff they're doing this week, just trying to bash Obama!  Hey, you know, government is always your enemy until you need a friend. This Ebola thing is the best argument you can make for the kind of government that we believe in."   Van Jones [Full]
Another exemplar of Progressives creating a problem and taking credit for trying to fix it, while only, as a rule, compunding the problem.  You're welcome.

University Psycho Babble Exemplar

According to a book written by longtime Florida A&M University professor Barbara A. Thompson, ...

Professor of Something Very Bad, Barbara A. Thompson

... Barack Obama is no mere mortal. He is, as she wrote, "Apostle Barack," sent to create a “heaven here on earth,” a post at PJ Tatler said Monday.

In her book, "The Gospel According to Apostle Barack: In Search of a More Perfect Political Union as 'Heaven Here on Earth,'" Professor Thompson says she was given this message in her dreams.

"Yes, Barack had worked tirelessly on behalf of the American people, especially those who elected him in 2008. His followers needed to re-elect him to a second term, so that he could continue to accomplish the promises he made, thus, realizing his vision of America as a more perfect political union or heaven here on earth,'” the book description at Amazon says.

"Then, as I began to contemplate ways to assist Barack in his 2012 re-election bid something miraculous happened. I felt God’s (His) Spirit beckoning me in my dreams at night. Listening, cautiously, I learned that Jesus walked the earth to create a more civilized society, Martin (Luther King) walked the earth to create a more justified society, but, Apostle Barack, the name he was called in my dreams, would walk the earth to create a more equalized society, for the middle class and working poor," she added. [Full]


I'll let an Amazon review speak for me, and, I am sure, for the entire rational world, such as exists.
106 of 108 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Barbara: Put down the Cool-Aid! November 9, 2012
I would have given this a Zero Star but that is not an option. Rather than waste money on this book, and fuel the author's next "dream," reflect on this wisdom from over 2,000 years ago:

"Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in his path and gave him triumphal processions. Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the 'new, wonderful, good society' which shall now be Rome's, interpreted to mean: more money, more ease, more security, more living fatly at the expense of the industrious." -- Marcus Tullius Cicero

Closing in on Voter ID (Right)


You would not know it if you read only the New York Times or watched only MSNBC, but the Left and President Obama are losing their fight to block the widespread introduction of voter ID cards. In courts of law and the court of public opinion, the issue is gaining traction. With few exceptions, liberal pressure groups have lost lawsuits in state after state, with courts tossing out their faux claims that ID laws are discriminatory, unconstitutional or suppress minority voting.
... over incumbent Republican Sen. Norm Coleman. A watchdog group matched criminal records with the voting rolls and discovered that 1,099 felons had cast ballots illegally. A local TV news reporter found that nine of the 10 felons he interviewed had voted for Franken. State law allows prosecutions only of those who admit knowingly committing voter fraud, and 177 were convicted. Franken’s victory margin was just 312 votes. It gave Democrats their 60th Senate seat, creating the filibuster-proof majority that helped make Obamacare law.

There is sharp disagreement over how many people lack proper identification. Former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, who is himself black, pointed out in the Wall Street Journal that “one of the most often-cited factoids — something that sounds authoritative but is not fact-based — is the NAACP’s claim that 25 percent of black American adults lack a government-issued photo ID. Think about that for a moment. This would mean that millions of African-American men and women are unable to legally drive, cash a check, board an airliner or participate in everyday activities of modern life.” Hyperbole of this sort perpetuates the patronizing view that minorities are helpless victims. Liberals say Blackwell doesn’t understand how high the barriers are for some people who lack ID. But if he were really wrong, it is difficult to see why so few voters apply for a free ID in states with such requirements. [Full]

I am quite unable to forgive the Franken Fraud.  Without that, there would be no Obamacare.  There would be nothing the regime have hoisted upon us that could not be undone.  While it's possible (but improbable) that Franken was not a knowing party to the fraud, there is no question about Obama Democrat guilt.  Left to me, some harsh punishment is meted out to the lot.  Very harsh.