The nation is awaiting a US Supreme Court decision better known as “Janus” on whether or not a union can force a public employee to pay union dues against their will. In many states today, people are forced to pay into union coffers whether they want to or not.
As we wait for the Supreme Court’s Janus decision, the nation’s largest teachers association is projecting to cut $50 million in anticipation of 300,000 current members exercising their first amendment rights to leave the union. They actually believe 300,000 members who currently do not want to be paying dues, should have to continue to do so.
As they continue to look for ways to fight for relevance, they are reaching new lows to help their endorsed candidates. Here in Colorado a well-known former State Senator Mike Johnston is running against the union backed candidate Cary Kennedy for the democratic nomination for Governor. In their “election guide” newsletter to their 35,000 members they falsely claimed an outside group opposite the union position on retirement reform gave Johnston $2,000,000 for his campaign. They in fact, donated exactly zero to his campaign.
Ballots are already in the mail and early voting has begun—their members are casting their vote based on this false information.
In the story they promise to: “offer a correction to all of its members who received the original false claim.” Primary voting ends Tuesday June 26. They were caught in a $2 million lie and will correct the mistake once the ballots are in and the correct information is meaningless to the election.
Not only do the national union folks want to force people to pay against their will, the locals right here in Colorado are using false information to control the dishonest narrative against their opponents.
The union opposes the first amendment rights of their own members but think their own first amendment rights allow them to make false claims against their opposition. In fact, they are already drafting contract clauses if Janus ruling goes against them, to ensure any member that leaves the union still has to pay a “maintenance of dues” even after leaving the union.
Currently, they use laws to limit their first amendment rights and they are already taking steps to use contracts to do the very same thing if the laws are struck down. If a law is unconstitutional, is a contract clause that does the exact same thing? That would be a fun hypothetical to use in a first year constitutional law class.