Reader comments
Court halts state banning of union dues

Joe | 4:06 a.m. Jan. 11, 2008

The First Amendment works in many ways, protecting all. Good for the 10th Court.

liberal larry | 6:39 a.m. Jan. 11, 2008

It is time for the megalomaniacs in the legislature to get over it, and move on, but with their delicate egos shattered by the voucher rebuke, they'll probably keep fighting to the supreme court.

Anonymous | 6:46 a.m. Jan. 11, 2008

having the union pick my pocket to support their political agenda needs to be stopped

Comments continue below

Teacher | 7:28 a.m. Jan. 11, 2008

Anonymous,
Pick YOUR pocket? The money that I choose to give to the UEA political action program is mine, not yours. I earned it and should be able to send it wherever I want. It costs you nothing. I have other money sent to my financial investments. I consider my PAC money an investment, too.

re Anonymous 6:46 (whose $$$) | 7:50 a.m. Jan. 11, 2008

The Union isn't (IS NOT) the one picking your pocket.

Voluntary deductions for union dues from teachers is a convience provided for by most employers that have union members. Utah is a right to work State and Union Membership is not required.

The group WITH their hand in your pocket ($$$) are your elected officials who, according to the story, have spent about $750,000 of your dollars -- not providing education to the citizens of the State, not on roads, but in an "unconstitutional attempt" to silence the speech of the states educators.

I'm tired of my money going to fight education in this state, rather than supporting education.

I think we need new leadership and representatives at the state level...

jeremykidd | 8:05 a.m. Jan. 11, 2008

I would like to know if those who are cheering this decision also cheered the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the McCain Feingold bill, restricting all our political speech. The courts long ago abandoned all pretense of protecting free political speech, so I wonder where this particular ruling came from. Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of political speech, so I don't mind the outcome of the case, at all, but it does seem that the courts don't always call it the same way - a little consistency would be nice.

UEA should pay the cost | 8:07 a.m. Jan. 11, 2008

Taking deductions from payroll checks creates additional costs to the entity cutting the checks. If the State of Utah is cutting the checks, then why should they have to pay for and keep track of getting dues to the UEA? If the UEA wants prepayroll deductions, then they should have to pick up any costs associated with it.

Send a message | 8:13 a.m. Jan. 11, 2008

Once again we see that the legislature has screwed up. When will we clean those vindictive idiots out? I mean ALL of them!

Rebel | 8:19 a.m. Jan. 11, 2008

This has been bulling by our elected officials. It is ironic how our extreme right wing legislators and supposedly ï¿½Defenders of the Constitutionï¿½ are willing to break their own creed to push their political agenda. This is the 2nd big defeat of the legislative bullies within the last 3 months. The ruling is good for America, good for Utah, and especially good for us little guys.

coachM | 8:23 a.m. Jan. 11, 2008

To UEA should pay costs: Deductions are made for
social security, State and federal income taxes,
medicare, insurance, and union dues. Is anyone else picking up these costs? Get off the bash UEA wagon!

Anonymous | 8:26 a.m. Jan. 11, 2008

Unions are necessary because there are enough clueless and uncaring employers out there to make it so. Our republican representatives bend over backward to accomidate the rich and powerful, but put obsticals in the way of letting the poor teachers have their rights, and historically the legislature has underfunded them too, and only now that its causing a shortage are they wanting to pay these workers more.

It's about time! | 8:32 a.m. Jan. 11, 2008

Very heartening decision! I taught school in Utah for 32 years, and it's nice to see public employees do enjoy the rights of citizenship, after all.

Phil | 9:10 a.m. Jan. 11, 2008

The federal pays billions to the state of Utah every year. So I have no problem with state not sending the federal government the bill for payroll deductions. But yes, UEA should pay the extra cost with this. This is huge stretch of interpretations of the first amendment.

Heads up | 9:39 a.m. Jan. 11, 2008

Another loss by the bullies in the legislature is going to drive their vindictiveness to a whole new level, we the people had better take notice and be ready to act. Already they want the State Board of Ed. to join the political arena where they will be forced to side with our idiots instead of stand up for the betterment of the whole community as they have been. Also note their intent to strip the UHSAA of what little power left to push their own agendas. Bullies are unreasonable, therefore to expect them to act on our behalf instead of figuring out ways to get even with those teachers, parents and true representatives of the general communities, is wishful thinking at best. If we don't send them a clear message come next elections then we deserve every kick in the head they give us.

Another idea | 10:27 a.m. Jan. 11, 2008

No problem, just have the donor or recipent pay a handling fee for the state taxpayer money used to process the donation. I am thinking about $20 per transaction should do.

Wilkey | 10:40 a.m. Jan. 11, 2008

"Pick YOUR pocket? The money that I choose to give to the UEA political action program is mine, not yours. I earned it and should be able to send it wherever I want. It costs you nothing. I have other money sent to my financial investments."

"Voluntary deductions for union dues from teachers is a convience provided for by most employers that have union members."

That's not really the point. The point is why does the state - or any other employer - have the legal obligation to collect that money on behalf of the union or anyone else?

What if a significant number of state employees belonged to the KKK - would the state be legally obligated to collect membership dues for the Klan, too?

I support several charitable/political causes, but I don't expect my employer to do their collecting for me. I write them a check or set up an automatic bank withdrawal. It's quite easy. Why should the taxpayers be obligated to provide collection services for the UEA's political arm? They don't do that for me.

JoAnn | 11:22 a.m. Jan. 11, 2008

Yes, this is another example of too many legislators supporting vindictive proposals often promulgated by legislative leadership. And who pays? The public! It's our tax money that funds these test cases in the courts.
I remember that the AG's Office originally recommended to legislative leadership that these bills (there were several) were unconstitutional. But too many legislators were seeking vengence against the UEA.
Let's throw the "rascals" out, but some legislators showed wisdom on this issue. Look at the legislator's voting record. Let's keep the good legislators and get rid of those that are always after teachers, firefighters, and other public employees.

WIlkey | 12:33 p.m. Jan. 11, 2008

"Yes, this is another example of too many legislators supporting vindictive proposals often promulgated by legislative leadership. And who pays? The public! It's our tax money that funds these test cases in the courts."

The outcome was by no means obvious. It is certainly not obvious that a court would a hold that an employer, government or otherwise, should be required to collect money for a union, a charity, or any other entity.

Besides that, there are different rulings in similar situations. The frequently overturned leftist looney 9th Circuit ruled the same way as the 10th. But the 6th Circuit ruled that a state had no such obligation. When that happens, when there are discrepancies amonst the Circuits, the only way to get a clearly defined rule is to go to the Supreme Court. I won't place any bets, but logic itself - as well as the 2 new appointments to the Court - suggest that Utah, not the UEA, is in the right on this.

Anonymous | 1:15 p.m. Jan. 11, 2008

"What if a significant number of state employees belonged to the KKK - would the state be legally obligated to collect membership dues for the Klan, too?"

Or for that matter, there is NO doubt that a significant portion of the state's employees are LDS, presumably tithe-paying. What if the state set up an automatic collection scheme for the Church? The ACLU would flip put, I'm sure - but that, of course would be totally contradictory to their position on this issue.

If you say that union mmbers have the right to automatic payroll deduction of dues/PAC contributions because there are lots of UEA members, but oppose such a plan for Church members, what leg have you to stand on?

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.