California Govt. Made For Unions---Judge Rules Against Privacy

[3rdnlng]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/examiner-editorial-california-trashes-privacy-rights-so-unions-can-collect-dues/article/2531338?custom_click=rss&utm_campaign=Weekly+Standard+Story+Box&utm_source=weeklystandard.com&utm_medium=referral

 

 

Unlike the U.S. Constitution, California's governing document includes an explicit guarantee of the right to privacy. Yet the Golden State's Supreme Court ruled last week that the guarantee is waived if a union wants to send somebody to a person's front door to explain why he should stop causing trouble and hand over money for union dues -- if he knows what's good for him. Or words to that effect.

 

The implications are chilling and ought to serve as a reminder to lawmakers in the 26 states without a right-to-work law that they should adopt one, soon. In the meantime, the California case pitted Los Angeles County against the Service Employees International Union. California has no right-to-work law, so the county government's employees have no choice but to either join SEIU or at least pay dues to it. They can object if their dues money is spent on political campaigns, but few do so for fear of workplace retaliation.

 

For many years, the county government acted as go-between for the union and the non-members by collecting dues. Then in 2006 the SEIU demanded that county officials turn over all workers' contact information. The court ruled on May 30, 2013, that, since the union's contract requires it to represent all county employees, it can contact them as well.

 

The court acknowledged that workers who opted not to join the union have "enhanced" privacy rights, but still ruled that the union's interests trump individual rights. But the ruling ignored the fact that the only reason the SEIU represents all county employees is that the union insisted on it in contract negotiations with local officials. Nothing in California or other law prevents the SEIU or other unions in California from signing contracts that obligate them to represent only dues-paying members.

 

The practical effect of this unfortunate ruling is that the SEIU now has a list with contact information for every employee that has opposed the union bosses' political agendas and favored candidates. Still, the logic underlying the ruling is plain: If the judges allow contracts so titled in the unions' favor, then they should also remove obstacles preventing labor officials from enforcing the agreements.

Edited June 7, 2013 by 3rdnlng

[DC Tom]

The court acknowledged that workers who opted not to join the union have "enhanced" privacy rights, but still ruled that the union's interests trump individual rights.

 

Now THAT is one singular load of ****.