Get the Ricochet app

Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.

Download on the App StoreGet it on Google Play

Become a member.

Tired of the toxicity of social media? Why not join Ricochet for just $5/month? Think of it as an online bar. Come in, have a drink, hang out, say whatever you want. But don’t badger, bully, or berate the other drinkers. That's our only rule.

Governments protecting their Government Employee Unions

RushBabe49
@RushBabe49
Join to bookmark17likesJoin to like7comments

This is a perfect illustration of the fact that government employee unions are detrimental to the citizens. In 2018, the Janus v. AFSCME decision was handed down by the US Supreme Court. Its conclusion was that government employees have the right to opt out of joining a union and paying its dues. Janus was a teacher who was forced to pay union dues, and was unhappy that those union dues went not to improving his lot, but to electing Democrats at all levels. He sued, and won the right NOT to join the union.

Almost immediately, the union issued rules on how to opt out that were onerous in the extreme, including offering a very narrow annual window to opt out, and a strenuous process to do so. AFSCME and other government-employee unions also did their best to keep their members from knowing their rights to opt out, because of course they wouldn't want to risk all that money to pay their own inflated salaries.

Just today, I have learned about another way that states are trying to prevent their workers from knowing that they have the right to opt out of the union (again demonstrating that governments and their employee unions are on the same side of the bargaining table). The Freedom Foundation, on the West Coast, has been sending marketing materials to union members, informing them of the Janus decision and reminding them that they can opt out. Well, more than one state has passed laws forbidding such organizations from communicating with union members about their rights. If anything violates the First Amendment, those laws do.

I have written a post on my blog about this, where I discuss the issue and reprint an article from Gateway Pundit explaining the situation.

This post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet's members.

Discussion (7)

  • Fritz@Fritz

    A while ago, when I used to listen to Rush and other conservative radio, there were ads running informing union members, especially teachers, that they could opt out. I question what effect those ads had, as I always wondered how many teachers, not exactly a pool of rabid right-wingers, ever listened to daytime talk radio at all, let alone right-leaning shows. More effective might have been advertising on NPR, but they probably would have refused the ads.

    Ed. to add:

    Too bad the original court ruling did not have the latitude to order the unions to publicize the fact their members or potential members could opt out.

  • DaveSchmidt@DaveSchmidt
    ReplyingtoFritz

    Fritz (View Comment):

    A while ago, when I used to listen to Rush and other conservative radio, there were ads running informing union members, especially teachers, that they could opt out. I question what effect those ads had, as I always wondered how many teachers, not exactly a pool of rabid right-wingers, ever listened to daytime talk radio at all, let alone right-leaning shows. More effective might have been advertising on NPR, but they probably would have refused the ads.

    Ed. to add:

    Too bad the original court ruling did not have the latitude to order the unions to publicize the fact their members or potential members could opt out.

    At that time, NPR did not have "advertisements."

Scroll for later comments
+2 more comments
Join the conversation

You're seeing five of seven comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.