Any thoughts on the ruling today? if i’m not mistaken. This whole thing was about unions endorsing politicians that did not sit well with the plaintiffs. So now what? Will endorsements become a thing of the past. The lord knows some of our endorsements came back to haunt us. Just a thought!
Adam, CAN’T disagree with your observation about our past endorsements coming back to bite us MANY TIMES but when you operate in Hell, you have to deal with the devil. What I can say is that NO Union dues are used BY THE LOCAL to contribute to ANY politician as we have a voluntary PAC Fund for that. I have to admit, however, that a portion of the per-capita fees we pay to the IAFF are used at the Federal level and the vast majority of those supported are on the democrat side. Like it or not, the fact is that folks like me, i.e. Republicans, are typically not supportive of Unions for many reasons but as a famous dem/lawyer friend of mine would say, “it is what it is”.
It seems to me that the plaintiff in that case was unhappy with the political endorsements ONLY. He had no problem paying dues to his union. it was when the union would endorse a politician as a whole. That is where the union crossed his line..
I hope everyone stays on board with our union. They have obtained wonderful things for us over the years.We should never forget that. Many union officers gave large portions of their lives for all of us. Maybe in the future, any and all endorsements by the PAC Fund, should emphasize that same endorsement is from the PAC Fund only and not the endorsement of the union as a whole. Everyone should be happy with that wording.
Thanks Adam for the explanation. I was unclear on what the ruling meant specifically for our locals. We all benefit tremendously from what the unions negotiate on our behalf. I wasn’t sure if the ruling meant that our unions could lose memberships, and the nonmembers still reap the rewards that members are afforded.