Union Forgeries Reveal Systemic Corruption Requiring Court Review – Opinion

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard last week arguments in three cases involving public worker labor unions that were accused of fraudulently signing dues-authorization cards. This allowed them to take employee money and use it for political purposes.

If combined with Nearly a dozenThere are other cases of union forgery that were brought before courts in the 9th Circuit. Another case is currently being heard by the 8th Circuit. The actions show how far the unions will push themselves to further their political agenda, without any regard for employees who they claim to be representing.

It’s one thing to assert that a government worker who signs a membership and dues-authorization card has agreed to give his or her money to a union for a specified period of time.

While signing a card does not necessarily negate the question of whether that employee has given affirmative consent to have union dues deducted from their paychecks as required by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, at least the argument isn’t absurd on its face.

But it’s altogether different to claim employees should be no less restricted when Each sideUnderstand that the union has signed the card. This is exactly what characterizes all the cases the unions are currently defending in the three western states.

You only need to look at the history of this argument in order to see how torturous it is. Janus lawsuit.

Mark Janus was an Illinois state employee whose money was taken despite his never having signed a union agreement or given affirmative consent — unequivocal requirements spelled out by Justice Samuel Alito in his stinging majority opinion.

Mark Janus didn’t do anything, but state law and the agreement between the union and the state required him to subsidise objectionable speech by the union.

You can see it here preciselyThe same statement was made by workers who found their union. They claimed that they had signed the contract. They did not give their consent through any contract, or other means. As Mark Janus said, they did nothing.

Yet the unions continued to take their money and spend it anyway on their favorite political projects.

This activity, in any other setting, would be clearly against the spirit (if not the letter) of the law. If you are pro-life, it would be possible for your employer to take your money and give it to a prolife advocacy group. Or vice versa.

Oder requiring that you support (with money) a party you hate.

All of this is not a problem for the unions. The courts are generally in agreement.

But it doesn’t take a constitutional scholar to understand why such a system is offensive and, in the context of public employee labor unions, unconstitutional.

Add some fraud and it becomes a poisonous mixture that is begging to be examined by the courts.

Adding insult to injury, the same unions that have been taking these employees’ money with neither contractual authorization norThey have the temerity to believe that this was a minor error in clerical procedure.

“Sorry, your honor. It won’t happen again. Oh, and here’s a check to make the lawsuit go away. Thanks for your time.”

In each of these forgery cases the Freedom Foundation has brought before West Coast courts, union leadership has gotten away with this tactic and been allowed to go on about their business — until the next time.

SEIU has been facing suits under RICO (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Acts in Washington State as well Oregon.

However, the Constitution calls for more.

Public employees are empowered by the First Amendment to decide whether or not to support union activities financially. Even if they decide to sign union agreements — and, in the case of the forgeries, they don’t — those agreements still have to conform to fundamental constitutional guidelines.

This includes employees who are informed by the union that by accepting to let them take their money, they will be waiving the First Amendment.

It’s not enough to sign a card that makes no mention of this fact — especially when the signature authorizing it is obviously bogus.

This entire issue centers on unions’ desire to avoid and subvert the force of the First Amendment.

It is possible that, depending upon the outcome of these cases in progress by the 9th Circuit or 8th Circuits, the Supreme Court will be required to step in and clarify that constitutional rights for public employees are dependent on much more than the pen stroke.

One that’s especially used by the unions.

Timothy Snowball works as a litigator at Freedom Foundation. www.FreedomFoundation.com