Today's DC Examiner has an editorial about the Foundation's upcoming US Supreme Court case, Daniel Locke v. Karass.

Here's an excerpt from the editorial:

Locke is one of 20 Maine state employees who found that their compulsory agency fees to the Maine State Employees Association were being used to fund union lawsuits and bargaining in other states via a funding pool administered by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Locke and his like-minded colleagues objected to having to pay the fees because they knew the SEIU aggressively pushes a political agenda outside of Maine, including political campaigning, lobbying government at all levels, litigation against employers, media advocacy and other non-bargaining activities. Every dollar taken from Locke to pay for union litigation outside Maine freed up a dollar to be spent on SEIU’s political agenda.

Sounds like an open-and-shut case, right? After all, Thomas Jefferson said it was “sinful and tyrannical” to “compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves.” And just last year, the court ruled that public employee unions must first get permission from individual members before using their dues for political activities. Justice Antonin Scalia declared that “unions have no constitutional entitlement to the fees of nonmember employees.”

But things are never so simple in the nation’s capital. U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement has submitted a brief in the case in which he argues that public employee unions can indeed use agency fees to pay their share of a litigation pool.

But, he says, doing so must further the government’s interest in keeping the peace in the workplace. He also says the union must give reasonable assurance that the pool doesn’t indirectly aid non-litigation activities.

In other words, as long as there is peace in the workplace and wink-winks from the union, President Bush’s solicitor general will be happy. And this president is anti-union?

Read the whole thing here.

A recent U.S Court of Appeals ruling found several National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC) union officials guilty of violating the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. The decision resolved a 1994 suit brought by David Noble, a postal worker who alleged union officials -- including a former NALC president -- funneled workers' dues into unmonitored expense accounts.

Judge Williams' concurrence features some particularly choice tidbits on the NALC's corrupt practices:

"Placing union money in the officers’ hands, solely on those same officers’ bland assurances that it will be used for union business, completely subverts the [NALC constitution] clause’s obvious goal of preserving accountability."

He also chides his two colleagues on the panel for refusing to punish union officials for excessive "per diem" expenditures:

At every biennial convention after 1964, a small group of unnamed delegates received a “per diem” payment calculated on the basis of certain estimated expenses: lost wages, hotel rooms, and meals and incidentals. Noble argued in the district court that the presidentially appointed Committee on Mileage and Per Diem asked each post-1964 convention to approve these payments without informing the delegates of two facts: (1) that the union’s officers were among those receiving per diem payments, even though they continued to earn their salaries and thus had no “lost time” (unlike rank-and-file mail carriers); and (2) that the union had already paid (in full or part) for most officers’ hotel rooms, transferring the union’s hotel discount to the officers’ benefit. Thus, the members were unaware of these costs’ peculiarities — peculiarities that might well have been material to their decision.

[Emphasis added]

Full text of the decision can be found here (pdf). More Freedom@Work posts on union corruption available here, here, and here.

While the ruling is welcomed, the fact remains that regulatory oversight of unions -- rather than simply stripping union bosses of the government-granted special privileges that facilitate the corruption -- results in little more than make-work for federal bureaucrats.

The Washington Post has an interesting article up on internal divisions within the Washington, DC teacher union. The corrupt union has been in a state of turmoil since former top boss Barbara Bullock was caught embezzling millions of dollars from union funds.

From 1995 to 2002, Bullock ripped off teachers' forced dues to go on massive shopping sprees at Saks, Nieman Marcus, and Tiffany's. Unsurprisingly, Bullock funded her excessive spending by jacking up mandatory union dues.

However, getting rid of Bullock hasn't solved rank-and-file teachers' problems. Teachers, parents, and administrators are dissastified with the system, and teacher union officials are resisting any change that may result in fewer teachers in their forced dues-paying ranks.

"Reformers" are calling for more oversight and transparency, but true reform can only occur if rank-and-file teachers are given a choice to keep their hard-earned money. Only the elimination of forced dues will make it possible to hold union officials accountable.