CALIFORNIA: Worker’s rights case appealed to U.S. Supreme Court by Freedom Foundation

By LAWRENCE WILSON Reprinted from The Center Square Nov. 28, 2022

Doesan employee have a constitutional right to resign from a labor union at any time? That question could be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court if it accepts an appeal filed by Washington state-based think tank the Freedom Foundation.

The case in question, Kurk v. Los Rios Classified Employees Association, concerns the enforceability of so-called maintenance of membership requirements in union contracts, which prevent employees from leaving the union except within 30 days of the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement.

Those provisions violate the free speech rights of workers, according to the Freedom Foundation.

“The Supreme Court ruled four years ago in Janus v. AFSCME that mandatory union membership, dues and fees in the public sector are a violation of the worker’s First Amendment rights,” Freedom Foundation Chief Litigation Counsel Eric Stahlfeld said in a statement. “But the unions have largely ignored the ruling, and lower courts have let it happen. Hopefully by appealing several different Janus-related cases, the justices will recognize the need to enforce their earlier ruling.”

The Kurk case originates with the 1997 decision by plaintiff Kristine Kurk, an employee of Los Rios Community College, to sign a “dues checkoff form,” agreeing to permit payroll deduction of LRCEA dues. The form did not contain an expiration date or any statement of a maintenance of membership requirement.

In 2017, California enacted a law stipulation that public employees cannot leave their union while the union’s collective bargaining agreement with their employer is still in effect.

In 2018, the Supreme Court’s Janus v. AFSCME decision ruled that mandatory union membership may not be required of public employees because it violates their First Amendment rights.

Kurk attempted to withdraw from the union in September 2018, but union officials denied the request, saying she could not resign until 30 days prior to the end of the collective bargaining agreement, Jun. 30, 2020.

The Freedom Foundation sued LRCEA in 2019, asserting the union contract violates the First Amendment.

Given the Janus ruling, the maintenance of membership provision is unconstitutional, the suit argued. Further, the 2017 California law could not be retroactively applied to Kurk

The suit was summarily dismissed by Judge Kimberly Meuller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.

The dismissal was upheld on appeal.

The case was appealed to the Supreme Court this November.

The Supreme Court receives well over 7,000 appeals each term, according to court documents, and accepts about 100 to 150 of them and hears oral arguments on about 80.

Generally, it takes six weeks for the court to decide whether to accept a case.

OHIO: Union agenda has nothing to do with education

Duringthe 2021-22 legislative session, a bill was introduced in the Ohio House of Representatives that would establish criteria a child must meet before a doctor in Ohio could prescribe puberty blockers or hormones. In addition, life-altering surgeries would be prohibited for anyone under the age of 18.

The legislation — House Bill 454 (HB 454) also known as the Save Adolescents from Experimentation Act — was assigned to the Families, Aging, and Human Services Committee, where it has had five hearings and received backlash from more than 100 people who attended and testified in opposition , most recently, on November 16.

The bill has yet to receive the support required to pass out of committee.

Still, the Ohio Federation of Teachers (OFT) has made it clear its union opposes

By CHARLI BROWN, Communications Specialist

this bill, as is evidenced in this November 16 tweet.

Nothing contained in this legislation concerns teachers’ working conditions, testing requirements or the curricula surrounding reading, math and science. However, this hasn’t stopped union leadership from publicly opposing an idea that most people recognize provides a protective benefit for struggling minors weighing permanent, life-altering decisions.

In a guest column for the Columbus Dispatch earlier this year, OFT President Melis- sa Cropper wrote, “Supporters of these bills have hijacked the statewide conversation about education policy and have turned our schools into a battleground for a divisive culture war riddled with false claims that teachers and administrators are indoctrinating students on issues of race and gender.”

Frankly, it is the teachers’ union bosses that have turned our schools into a battleground and used our children as pawns to further their radical social agenda.

OFT’s opposition to HB 454 is only the most recent example of teachers’ union leaders in Ohio and across the country promoting a radical agenda, which has nothing to do with education. It’s high time the union stopped social engineering and focused its efforts to assist teachers in the classroom and improve student outcomes.