Tuesday, January 12, 2016

Supreme Court revisits union dues for public employees; are Powerball lotteries bad for "stability"?

The Supreme Court is reportedly skeptical of the laws in some states that allow public employees’ unions to collect mandatory fees from employees. David G. Savage covered the oral arguments Monday in the Los Angeles Times.  Savage writes that in California, unions may not mandate dues for PAC’s (political candidate lobbying) but may for general operations, as if there were a distinction.  (That’s common --- non-profits often have separate political caucuses for which contributions are not deductible.)

The case is Rebecca Frederichs v. California Teachers Association, et al , oral arguments text.  An important question is whether employees can be forced to pay to represent views they don't personally believe. Or does that dichotomy come from employment itself?

George Will also writes a compelling First Amendment argument against mandatory union dues, however construed, for public employees in the Washington Post.

Let’s move on to another issue, the lotteries. I can remember back around 1972, that the People’s Party of New Jersey claimed that a lottery is the most regressive “tax” that exists, because poor people are more likely to buy the tickets.  It gets annoying to wait for these time-consuming transactions in convenience stores.  Well, what about Las Vegas?  What about casinos?  Of course, the far Left wants to eliminate all unearned wealth (included inherited) as a source justifying revolution and expropriation (or “purification”).  Imagine how that kind of thinking adds to instability today.

No comments: