Tag: Union dues

Posted on

Only 12% of NJEA’s Highest-In-The-Nation Dues Are Reinvested at the Local Level

njea plmjw4q6 f27bkjhk 3303170741

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, the Sunlight Policy Center of New Jersey released their latest report today, entitled The NJEA vs. Local Unions: The Local Unions Make and the NJEA Takes.  The report examines the relationship between the statewide New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) and the hundreds of affiliated local unions around the Garden State and finds that only 12 percent of New Jersey teachers’ dues return home.

Continue reading Only 12% of NJEA’s Highest-In-The-Nation Dues Are Reinvested at the Local Level

Posted on

South Jersey Bus Drivers Win Back Illegally-Seized Union Dues in First Amendment Lawsuit

306832281 542171207828849 541751012257200628 n

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Camden NJ , Camden-area South Jersey Transportation Authority (SJTA) driver Tyron Foxworth and six of his colleagues have prevailed in their federal lawsuit charging the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers Local 196 (IFPTE) union with violating their First Amendment rights.

Continue reading South Jersey Bus Drivers Win Back Illegally-Seized Union Dues in First Amendment Lawsuit

Posted on

South Jersey Bus Drivers Hit Union with Federal Lawsuit Challenging Unconstitutional Union Dues

external content.duckduckgo 71

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Camden NJ,  group of Camden-area drivers for the South Jersey Transportation Authority (SJTA) is suing union officials in federal court for seizing money from their paychecks in violation of the First Amendment. The drivers are receiving free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.

Continue reading South Jersey Bus Drivers Hit Union with Federal Lawsuit Challenging Unconstitutional Union Dues

Posted on

Labor Day Union Money in Elections

big-rat_theridgewoodblog

file photo by Boyd Loving
Amy Payne
September 3, 2012 at 8:59 am

This election year, millions of Americans will donate to the political candidates and initiatives of their choice at the local, state, and federal levels. But for unionized workers, union dues come out of their paychecks and go to political causes—and they aren’t consulted on where that money will go.

In July, The Wall Street Journal’s Tom McGinty and Brody Mullins published an eye-opening report that “Organized labor spends about four times as much on politics and lobbying as generally thought.”

Continue reading Labor Day Union Money in Elections

Posted on

How Much Does The NJEA Really Spend On Politics?

logo full

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, Over the last two weeks, since our launch, the Sunlight Policy Center of New Jersey (SPCNJ) has shined a strong light on two important issues related to the powerful NJEA.

We showed, with each step clearly sourced, how the NJEA leadership funds its powerful political machine through a unique system based on billions of taxpayer dollars.  We have also highlighted the political professionals who have specifically benefitted from all that money, whether it be the millions in political contributions to elected officials or the millions more to NJEA headquarters staff, including six one-percenters who make ten times more than their union membership.

Continue reading How Much Does The NJEA Really Spend On Politics?
Posted on

NBC4 I-Team Report Focuses On North Bergen Coerced Teachers’ Contributions

nj 091815 sacco1

North Bergen NJ, ‘Several current and former educators and political insiders in Hudson County claim teachers are pressured to make political donations to a campaign fund linked to North Bergen Mayor Nicholas Sacco. Some said their jobs and promotions can be affected by whether and how much they give’, according to NBC4’s I-Team, led by investigative journalists Jonathan Dienst and David Paredes.  The current dispatch from the I-Team follows a previous report from November focusing on Sacco’s family employment in North Bergen.

The report also includes an audio clip sent to them in which Mayor Sacco allegedly speaks about the I-Team investigation, saying of NBC “they are liars. They are incompetent.  ‘You’re either totally incompetent or totally corrupt.’  One or the other. OK, that’s both response to them.  They are not your friends. They will twist what you say.”  Sacco allegedly also says that the NBC4 team is ‘behaving like criminals’.

According to the report, Sacco’s team contends that the I-Team is colluding with Sacco nemesis Larry Wainstein, a claim they deny.

Read the I-Team report here.

Posted on

N.J. Officials Respond to U.S. Supreme Court Ruling on Labor Unions, Explain How Politicians Will be Protected Going Forward

bankrupt_monopoly

July 1,2018
the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Trenton NJ, Governor Phil Murphy, Attorney General Gurbir S. Grewal and Labor Commissioner Rob Asaro-Angelo responded today to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that says public sector workers need not pay their “fair share” of dues to the unions that represent public sector employees.

In an opinion issued this morning, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. The petitioners in Janus asked the Court to overrule an earlier decision that had determined public unions could require all workers to pay a “fair share” of union dues to defray the cost of collective bargaining. New Jersey, along with a coalition of states and unions, defended that prior decision. But in a 5-4 ruling this morning, the Supreme Court decided to allow workers to refuse to pay their fair share, potentially weakening collective bargaining by labor groups that negotiate employee compensation, pensions, and contracts.

“This disappointing decision does not in any way diminish our administration’s commitment to protecting the right of public sector employees to organize,” responded Governor Phil Murphy. “We stand firm with our labor unions and labor organizations to advocate and protect members’ rights as we did with the Workplace Democracy Enhancement Act I signed in May. Supporting strong unions is a critical part of making New Jersey’s economy work for everyone.”

If you read between the lines New Jersey politicians particular Democrats are upset that state workers will no longer be forced to support them through political donations.

Attorney General Gurbir Grewal agreed , “The very first amicus brief I signed as Attorney General was one in support of workers’ rights in Janus v. AFSCME,” said Attorney General Grewal. “I was proud to stand with labor on this crucial issue and remain so today. In New Jersey, we’re charting a path to protect workers even as the federal government turns away from them.

“At the Attorney General’s Office, we will use our legal authorities to continue vigorous enforcement of state laws that protect workers’ rights to organize and to engage in collective bargaining,” Attorney General Grewal continued. “Nothing about today’s decision changes that.”

The only thing Trenton is interested in protecting is the compact between state workers and Democrats that says you give us campaign contributions and we give you raises and generous contracts .

“This decision is a travesty for working men and women everywhere, particularly here in New Jersey, where workers’ right to organize is protected by our state Constitution,” added Labor Commissioner Rob Asaro-Angelo. “The decision undermines the ability of working people around the country to receive the respect and appreciation they deserve. Despite this ruling, the Department of Labor and Workforce Development is committed to working with our sister government agencies to protect workers’ rights, secure their safety, and ensure the dignity that work provides.”

The only “travesty” has been the lack of tax payer representation in the political process and the control of state government to unions

Posted on

U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Unions vs Free Speech Case

supreme_court_building

February 23,2018

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Washington DC, The Supreme Court is scheduled to return to Washington next week after nearly a month off. The justices will hear a number of important oral arguments, including a case involving free speech, and public employee unions.

Next Monday February 26th , the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in one of the most anticipated cases of the year, the case of Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31.

This case could have an enormous impact on big union states like New Jersey and may impact many unions political influence like the NJEA.

The case focuses on Mark Janus who is not a public sector union member but has to pay fees ie inion dues anyway. Janus argues these fees “violate his free speech and free association rights.”

This case involves forcing public employees who opt out of union membership to pay a fee for the “fair share” of costs associated with collective bargaining. Mark Janus, an Illinois state employee, argues that forcing him to subsidize the union he has declined to join violates his free speech and free association rights.

The court will look at whether to overturn its 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which held that public employees could be forced to pay an agency fee.

This very issue was before the court in 2016 when Justice Antonin Scalia died. The court deadlocked 4-4 in Friedrichs v. California Teachers’ Association, thereby upholding the lower court ruling in favor of the California Teachers Association.

Posted on

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case Against Compulsory Public-Sector Union Fees

l_20140108-trenton-capitol-building-1200

 

SCOTUS will hear Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31 this term.

Damon Root|Sep. 28, 2017 10:55 am

Today the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that has the potential of delivering a death blow to the legal privileges enjoyed by public-sector unions.

The case is Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31. At issue is whether it is constitutional for state governments to compel public-sector workers to pay union fees as a condition of employment even when those workers are not union members.

The case was brought by Mark Janus, a state employee in Illinois who objects to paying mandatory fees to a union that he has refused to join. Janus argues that the state’s scheme violates his First Amendment rights by forcing him to support political speech and activity that he does not wish to support.

Janus’s overarching goal is to overturn the Supreme Court’s 1977 precedent in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, in which the Court approved mandatory public-sector union fees on the grounds that non-union “free riders” should have to contribute something toward collective bargaining activities that benefit them too. That ruling provided a massive boon to public-sector unions nationwide.

https://reason.com/blog/2017/09/28/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-major-case

Posted on

Supreme Court may limit ability of public unions to forcibly take money from ‘members’

union obama

By Nick Sorrentino on January 12, 2016

This would be a positive for the country. (Though some will of course wail.) Unions shouldn’t be able to just take money out of people’s paychecks just because a particular union says that it represents a particular worker. That’s crazy.

I am of the opinion that in theory private sector unions can actually be valid tools within the marketplace. They help to set expectations for employees and management alike while also creating some degree of employment stability for workers. So long as such a private union is based upon free association and not a tool of cronyism (this is of course the rub), and doesn’t coerce fees from its members, I can see how a private union, again in theory, can be a perfectly good thing. However, in a government situation, where the taxpayers are the employers, unions shouldn’t be allowed. Governments are nearly always hijacked by public sector unions which “negotiate” with politicians who are elected with money from the public unions. Even FDR thought public unions were a bad idea.

https://www.againstcronycapitalism.org/2016/01/supreme-court-may-limit-ability-of-unions-to-forcibly-take-money-from-members/

Posted on

Obama racking up judicial losses as Supreme Court rules on Obamacare, union dues

images-1

Obama racking up judicial losses as Supreme Court rules on Obamacare, union dues

President Obama suffered two final defeats in the Supreme Court on Monday, capping a 2013-2014 term in which the justices delivered several judicial hits to the White House while taking a firm stand against the unchecked power of the state.

The administration’s losses on Obamacare rules and compulsory union dues served as a rebuke on the Supreme Court’s final day after months of judicial decisions to rein in big government on issues such as snooping without a warrant, campaign finance restrictions and Mr. Obama’s recess appointment powers.

Just as damning was the way the court ruled in some of those cases. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. corralled unanimous votes on privacy and recess appointments — cases that dealt stinging defeats to Mr. Obama, himself a lawyer and former lecturer on constitutional law.

In the more than five years that Mr. Obama has been in office, the court has rejected the government’s argument with a 9-0 decision 20 times.

During the eight years each in the administrations of George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, the government lost on unanimous votes 15 times and 23 times, respectively. That puts the Obama administration on pace to greatly exceed recent predecessors in terms of judicial losses.

Read more: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/30/obama-racking-up-judicial-losses/#ixzz36DlnoddZ