You’re a public sector employee, and your position you are forced by the laws on the books to pay union dues even if you are not a union member.
Why?
Well, that is exactly what a group of California teachers are asking SCOTUS.
A group of public schoolteachers on Monday petitioned the Supreme Court to hear a challenge to laws allowing teachers unions to require dues from nonmembers who disagree with union positions and policies.
A decision in the teachers’ favor could change how public employee unions operate nationwide.
The lawsuit, first filed in April 2013, takes aim at the 300,000-member California Teachers Association and the affiliated National Education Association. The plaintiffs – 10 California teachers and the Christian Educators Association International – claim California’s “agency shop” law is unconstitutional and violates teachers’ First Amendment rights by forcing them to pay union dues regardless of whether they support or are a member of the union. Twenty-six states currently have such laws in place.
Justice Alito has signaled that he wants to talk about this, so I’m very interested. And you should be too.
In Washington state, as a teacher they said it was a legal “representation fee” for the “collective bargaining process.” I didn’t have a choice but to pay. If I’m a union member they take the money and spend it on things I oppose, but if I’m a screw-up they’ll protect me. If I’m not a union member, they’ll take the money anyway, spend it on things I oppose anyway, and not protect me if someone comes after me because I honestly pointed out that their special snowflake isn’t.
I think in any other industry it would be called “protection money.”