This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Health & Fitness

Tribune Misses the Mark #3

This is the third in a series on the TNT editorial in support of the US Supreme Court’s decision in Harris v. Quinn on Sunday.  I believe the Tribune's editorial misses the mark.

6)  “Some maverick employees may feel they’re compensated well enough already; they may prefer that that public funds not be spent giving them another raise. They might prefer that the library stay open on Friday night, or that more potholes be filled.”   “They have a right to feel that way. If they have chosen not to join a public union, they should also have the right not to subsidize collective bargaining that violates their convictions about government priorities.”   Such altruism is rare in our materialistic society, to say the least.  I will begin to believe this line of reasoning, when those self same employees petition their employers to withhold bargained pay raises and redirect the money elsewhere.  Until that time, those employees are accepting the largess of their co-workers, making this is a fanciful argument, to put it mildly.

 

Find out what's happening in Kirklandwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

(7)  “The argument for using state power to compel agency fees in the public sector boils down to: It’s good for unions. That’s true enough, but it’s a thin rationale for compromising a worker’s First Amendment right to political expression.”  There are quite a few other considerations than those presented in this absurdly narrow point of view.  For example, denying public employees the right to form unions makes them a class of secondary citizens, based upon their employment.  Such classifications are unConstitutional.  Also, “free riders” is the term used in legal discussions to describe those who benefit from a union’s service but manage to avoid paying for it.  The act of paying for those services is called “agency fees” and sometimes referred to as “fair share”.  The US Supreme Court, in Abood, recognized the concepts of “free riders” and “agency fees/fair share”.  Furthermore, in his majority opinion, Justice Alito points out that the reason the majority came to this decision was that Illinois health care workers were a unique group of “public employees”, in that the union did not appear to be providing the same range of services to these employees that they traditionally do for other union members, public or private.

 

Find out what's happening in Kirklandwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Those who think the Supreme Court’s decision in Harris v. Quinn will open the doors to further limitations upon the use of agency fees apparently have no qualms about creating classifications of secondary citizens, or more likely no qualms about doing anything they can to damage the efficacy of unions in general.  For this reason, I believe the Tribune's editorial misses the mark. 

 

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?

More from Kirkland