|
July 30, 2003
Which of the following is not an example of free speech:
A) A street-corner sign-waver.
B) A citizen addressing a public forum.
C) An individual’s contribution to purchase candidate promotional materials.
D) An organization taking an unwilling worker’s money to spend on politics
(unless he or she completes a lengthy objection process).
If you guessed "D," you are clearly not one of
the enlightened leaders of the Washington Education Association—or
one of the two appellate judges who endorsed their point of view. For these
folks, individual free speech rights are of less value than the "collective
rights" of labor organizations.
Last month, our state Court of Appeals ruled that a portion
of I-134—the campaign finance initiative passed by 72% of voters in
1992—was unconstitutional. The law in question prohibited union officials
from taking money from non-member teachers without consent to pay for union
politics. The Court said requiring unions to get voluntary contributions
for politics is "unduly burdensome," and any free speech rights
workers have are outweighed by a union’s right to speak for them unless
they do something about it.
WEA president Charles Hasse defined the conflict clearly:
"Ultimately, it gets down to people’s right to free association
and to have a collective voice versus an individual right and how that’s
resolved."
Actually, Mr. Hasse, this apparent conflict can be resolved
very simply: You don’t have a right to fund your "free speech"
with other people’s money.
It’s not in the Constitution. Not in the First Amendment.
Not in any amendment. Not in the Declaration of Independence. Not anywhere
else. There is no collective right to free speech, just the rights of individuals,
by themselves or in groups.
As Mr. Hasse points out, there is a right to free
association. But with his doublespeak, he redefines "free" to
mean he should be free to force others to support his organization. To most
of us, "free" means people can decide for themselves.
By the latter meaning, teachers are not free. They are forced
to associate with the union to keep their jobs. Even teachers who do not
want to be WEA members are required by union contract (backed up by state
law) to pay the equivalent of dues or be fired.
The U.S. Supreme Court has permitted states to force workers
to pay unions for collective bargaining services, since all workers are
presumed to benefit from those services. It has also recognized that individuals
with dissenting views should only be compelled to pay for those services,
not politics. And it has crafted a limited (and rather arduous) proceeding
for workers who want to object.
Washington state citizens thought workers deserved even stronger
protection, so they went a step further to make sure unions would only spend
mandatory fees on collective bargaining. Where the Supreme Court provided
a complex objection process for workers who didn’t want to pay for
union politics, Washington voters said unions should get permission before
spending their money.
Our state Court of Appeals, misinterpreting the Supreme Court
precedents, came to the conclusion that the more complex proceeding was
the only proper one, and that somehow the union had inalienable rights—independent
of authority granted by law—to spend workers’ money on politics.
The Court of Appeals failed to recognize that the "rights"
of unions can only be legitimately derived from the people the union represents.
Washington citizens have the authority to grant unions the power to compel
contributions from all workers, willing or not, and they also have the authority
to limit that power. That’s what they did, and their limitation is
only fair: if you want to spend someone else’s money on politics, you
have to ask for it.
There is not, and never can be, a conflict between the right
of free association and free speech. People who choose to join the union
are free to support the union’s political goals if they desire.
People who don’t want to join the union shouldn’t
be forced to do so (even if they must pay for collective bargaining costs),
and shouldn’t be forced to support the political speech of other people.
But if the recent Court of Appeals ruling stands, they will be.
The WEA, meanwhile, fights for the power to spend the money
of all teachers—members or not—on whatever it jolly well chooses.
Despite the absurd Appeals Court ruling, there are two bits
of good news in this battle. One is that the state Attorney
General is appealing the decision to the Washington State Supreme Court,
where we can hope for a ruling that recognizes an elementary understanding
of the Constitution.
The other is that Charles Hasse and other WEA officials are
no longer in the classroom teaching their Orwellian version of freedom to
our children.
Karen Helland is a project manager for the Olympia-based
Evergreen Freedom Foundation. Carl Gipson is the Foundation’s deputy
communications director.
Carl
Gipson | Deputy Communications Director | 360.956.3482
|
Evergreen Freedom Foundation
P.O. Box 552, Olympia, WA 98507
Phone: (360) 956-3482, Fax: (360) 352-1874
Email: effwa@effwa.org |
| 
