As we noted Tuesday, the Republican Supreme Court will be ruling on Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association this session. The case involves plaintiffs backed by a Koch brothers group who are challenging the right of a public sector teachers union to collect dues from teachers who aren't union members. In order to find for the plaintiffs, the Republican Supreme Court would have to overturn a 40- year- old precedent.
We thought these letters to the editor of the
The attorneys in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association assert that agency fees “require that employees and teachers who disagree with [union] positions must nevertheless subsidize the union,” as Justice Anthony M. Kennedy put it [“Justices seem leery of labor’s forced dues,” front page, Jan. 12]. Logic demands that those “who disagree with [union] positions” carry their position to its natural conclusion. If you are anti-union, you are entitled to your opinion, but you should be consistently and thoroughly anti-union and demonstrate the integrity of your moral stand by refusing all workplace gains won by unions.
I am sure that employers will be all too happy to do their part to reward anti-union employees by abrogating the 40-hour workweek, paid vacation time , fair wage scales, health and retirement benefits and the entire spectrum of workplace improvements won by unions for all workers over the past 120 years.
These benefits rightfully belong only to those who fight for them.
Greg Johnson, College Park
* * *
Is the Supreme Court worried that union fees are more “coercive” than using corporate funds to influence democratic decisions, as the Citizens United case permits?Of course, the ultra- right Koch brothers, other Republican plutocrat groups and their Supreme Court "justices" understand political speech as essentially a commodity -- the more speech you can buy, the better (remember, "corporations are people, my friend!"). And the more you can monopolize political speech, well that's basically the ultra- right Republican model, revealed here once again.
The United States pioneered civic organizations as places of common action. But perhaps the Supreme Court believes that civic organizations should have only certain political leanings and that the rest of us should just enjoy watching TV and not mess up civic life by forming powerful interest groups that might conflict with corporate ones. Too bad.
Since Franklin and Jefferson, haven’t we learned that democracy thrives on such interest group conflicts?
Jeff Blum, Takoma Park
