Tribune Editorial Misses the Mark

The Tacoma News Tribune published an editorial in support of the US Supreme Court’s decision in Harris v. Quinn on Sunday.  I believe the Tribune's editorial misses the mark. 

(1)  “The courts have been emphatic on one point, though: Agency fees must be spent only on collective bargaining.”  The Supreme Court offered more uses for union dues/fees than just collective bargaining.  For example, it’s clear they see administration of grievances as a proper union function, as well.

(2)  “Unions can’t skim them to pay for political lobbying and campaigns to put their allies in public office.”  Washington state law is very clear about what kinds of money may be used to support candidates and union dues are clearly outside the definition of permissible funds.  Washington state law also makes it clear that it’s acceptable for unions to use union dues to support an issues campaign, if the issue relates to the profession the union represents.  So, we will likely see the WEA spending union dues to support I-1351, as the content of that initiative speaks to conditions of employment, not to mention the learning environment of students.  Washington state law also permits unions to use dues money to lobby the legislature on issues.  In this regard, I believe the Trubune's editorial misrepresents the facts.  

Those who think the Supreme Court’s decision in Harris v. Quinn will open the doors to further limitations upon the use of agency fees apparently have no qualms about creating classifications of secondary citizens, or more likely no qualms about doing anything they can to damage the efficacy of unions in general.  For this reason, I believe the Tribune's editorial misses the mark.