Comments about ‘Appeals court upholds payroll-deductions law’

This ruling violates the constitutional rights of public employees and the 10th Circuit Court has in its efforts to side with the government chose to rule in its own favor against those who are upset with these justices and their buddies in the State of Utah who are violating their rights. We, as teachers, don't recognize the decision of these justices whose ruling is basically: we the state did this and we the state rule in our favor against you and your families. Now bow before us and other members of the state and worship our families. He, he, he. We have more power than you and us and our spouses have more say in their government than you and your loser spouses. Bow before the great and royal members of the Court of the Rulers."

Sorry 5:22, but the U.S. Supreme Court's job is to interpret the Constitution. A constitutional right doesn't exist unless they say it does. Therefore, the SC's ruling cannot violate the constitutional rights of public employees. How a union can claim a "right" to use payroll deductions to support it is beyond me. Are you afraid your members won't contribute if they actually have to think about doing so?

Oh, and I really hope you're not an English teacher.

Don't forget this is Utahistan, where the taliban reigns supreme.

Why should the government be skimming money off of people's paychecks so a union can go out an play politics. It seems like bad public policy to me.

The government already gives union officials too many special privileges. Union bosses should have to go out an persuade people to contribute to their ideological movement, not have the government be a bag man for them.

I'll bet employees would be more likely to exercise their rights under the Right to Work law and drop their union membership if there was no payroll deduction of dues. That's why union activists are so upset about this development.

Another irresponsible and illegal decision by a court. There is absolutely no basis for this so-called opinion that classifies teachers as second class citizens. Someday, society will wake up and refuse to allow a tiny branch of the government to make laws that disregard the will of the people.

Maybe the unions would be willing to put up part of the money to pay those who would enter the payroll deduction information... I didn't think so.

"disregard the will of the people"? Every union I've ever studied ignores most of its constituents in order to serve its collective (usually the union bosses) ego.

I used to be in the UEA and our district union as well. I liked the feeling I got have having "protection." I wanted to get more involved. I served as a school representative. I thought we did some great things. I went to the national convention. I came home and withdrew my membership.

I learned there all that the union represented and supported. I couldn't stand knowing that my money had gone to support causes that I am vehemently opposed to. My friends told me that was just the price we payed for protection... sorry, that's not enough.

Fortunately, after digging a little bit I found out that my school district would actually cover me in case of a law suit - that coverage was offered to all teachers in the district (and it would kick in before any of the union's "protection"). I also found that I'm covered by my insurance policy, and life is much better.

So the union can go back to trying to keep our raises (the one we got a few years ago) in the districts hands (look it up!)... but not with my money!

What happened to my right to keep my money and not have it spent by the union via payroll deduction? If I want to contribute, I still can. My right to contribute did not go away, it just changed on how it is accomplished. What is unconstitutional about that? I can still write out a check. How does this decision make any teacher a second class citizen? Forced payroll deduction seems more unconstitutional than freedom to decide if you want it or not. Give me liberty, don't tie my hands.

I think Ken Goddard's "Utahistan" really is "Utahstand." It is one's "Free Agency" to choose where workers want their political contributions to go. Unions really are the talibans of the USA.

Oh please, McGurkus! What was illegal about the decision? How does it treat unionized teachers as second class citizens? And how were payroll-deducted union dues the "will of the people?" Have you even read the opinion?

Rather than irresponsibly levying inflammatory and uneducated accusations, why don't you provide a little foundation for your comments. Please, educate us as to how you've concluded the decision is "illegal" and demeaning to unionized teachers.

I'm glad the Supreme Court stopped this unethical practice. The teachers' union has one of the most powerful political campaign machines in the State. Let them obtain their PAC money like everyone else. However, one more thing needs to be stopped. Several school districts in the State are paying the salaries of teacher union presidents working full time for the union. These are your tax dollars funding the agenda and propaganda of the union! As citizens we need to demand this be put to a stop!

Membership to political unions should be voluntary and unions have nothing to do with workers and the right to work laws. The right to work laws only apply to business and labor issues, not politcal party particpation. The UEA and NEA are clearly political unions that are heavely involved with politcal issues and not workers wages and benefits or defending workers in employment abuse. It's about time that these organizations earn their voluntary donations from educators and not a requirement of employment.

The really scary thing about the 10th Circuit's decision is the ignorance manifested by those who oppose it.

The ruling is a result of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on a case from Idaho where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that IDAHO's law was constitutional. Furthermore, the 10th Circuit is located in Denver.

So the ruling really does not even have anything to do with any political ties of the judges to Utah, and clearly is not illegal or unconstitutional.

The ignorance of the protestors might be excusable, except that these are the teachers of our children who are either so ignorant or so biased as to not understand how our legal and political systems works.

What hope do our children have of learning how our political and legal systems works, or should work, if their teachers don't understand them or are trying to manipulate them for their own financial benefit.

That is what is really scary.

As a State Employee (postint this on my lunch break) I agree with this decision. My UPEA membership should not be used for political activities that I don't agree with.
HOOOORAY!

The proponents of this law have been completely false in how they painted it. It was ALREADY illegal in Utah to require political donations, and it NEVER happened!

This wasn't about "protecting" union members from their union. It was about making it difficult for members to donate on a regular basis IF they chose to. It was, pure and simple, retribution against UEA.

The courts ruled - it is legal. The Supreme Court ruled - it is constitutional. If individuals want to donate - they would. Balances are significantly down so that really says that teachers don't want to be coerced into the contributions either. The losers are the ones the law sought to protect Utahns from - unions strong arms who forced contributions through public and government means.

UEA, go cry to someone who cares.

We were NOT coerced, and I didn't say it wasn't constitutional. It just didn't have anything to do with "protecting" union members. It's sole purpose was to lower the contributions brought in, hurting UEA's election efforts. It lowers contributions only because it is more inconvenient now, not because the teachers were forced before.

How does this make it difficult for anyone to donate to any group they choose?

What is stopping them?

As one poster says:

"When the Supreme Court ruling was issued, Kim Campbell, president of the Utah Education Association, said a convenience was taken away from public servants, causing them to have to make individual donations to the causes they would typically support anyway."

Kim Campbell makes a big leap with her assumption that union members would have supported causes anyway! Next the union will want the members to have the 'convenience' of a sarogate voter, so members won't have to go to the polls! Guess who they might be? Union members can donate to causes like all non-union members do! It's called 'freedom of speech'.

How is it difficult to donate? Just set up a monthly order with your bank and they can send it to the union thugs