In recent months, Google has justifiably suffered heavy criticism for selectively acting as internet…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Google and Other Politicized Organizations Target 2nd Amendment and Consumer Choice

In recent months, Google has justifiably suffered heavy criticism for selectively acting as internet gatekeeper, deciding what Americans can and cannot view online.  Countless examples exist when the liberal Silicon Valley giant leveraged its  market power to censor along ideological lines, including:  banning the conservative blog The New York Conservative, hosted on Google Blogger, for opining on the trial of terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed;  demoting pro-Brexit/Euroskeptic websites by pushing them down in search results;  excluding Donald Trump from “presidential candidates” search;  and blocking free speech social network Gab from the Google Play Store, alleging violations of the company’s hate speech policy.

The latest revelation of Google’s partisan bias…[more]

September 19, 2018 • 10:27 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Government Workers 'Free at Last' Print
By Betsy McCaughey
Thursday, June 28 2018
Quoting Jefferson, Alito said 'to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.'

Rank and file government workers won big over union bosses Wednesday, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Mark Janus, an Illinois state worker who refused to join the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. The court struck down an Illinois law that allowed the union to deduct fees from Janus's paycheck despite his refusal to join.

The Janus ruling smashes laws in 22 states  including New York, Connecticut, New Jersey and California  that compel nonmembers to support unions. Until now, if you wanted a government job in these states, you had to pay up. But now firefighters, teachers and other public employees won't have to fork over a penny to a union if they choose not to join. For the average worker who opts out, it will mean hundreds of dollars more in take-home pay a year.

More in workers' pockets, less in union coffers. Nationwide, unions are expected to forfeit hundreds of millions of dollars when nonmembers stop paying and some members quit to save money, too.

When unions lose, so do politicians  primarily Democrats  who feed at their table. The Democratic Party counts on unions to tilt elections with hefty donations and manpower to get out the vote. Unions are the Democratic Party's ATM. The Janus ruling, by reducing that money source, levels the political playing field.

One Republican is already a winner  President Donald Trump  for delivering on his promise of a conservative court. In a 2016 Supreme Court case over union fees, the Justices split 4-4, leaving mandatory fees in place. This time Trump's Supreme Court pick, Neil Gorsuch, cast the tie-breaking vote.

Before the ruling, nonmembers could in theory request a refund of any fees unions admitted spending on politics. But unions insisted little of it was spent that way. Janus argued that everything a government union like AFSCME does is political. Janus blamed AFSCME for the costly labor contracts and huge public budgets that Illinois taxpayers had to pay for. The Justices decided that compelling Janus to support the union violates his constitutional rights under the First Amendment.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, discarded a 1977 precedent and went straight to the founders. Quoting Jefferson, Alito said "to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

Unions are apoplectic. The National Education Association plans to slash its budget, fearing that 300,000 members will quit.

Union bosses and their political allies aren't taking the ruling lying down. Governor Andrew Cuomo's been touting his "anti-Janus" legislation, designed to make it nearly impossible for workers to opt out of unions.

New Jersey's Governor Phil Murphy also signed an end-run around Janus. It shrinks the opt-out window to a mere 10 days each year.

New Jersey's anti-Janus law also requires new hires to sit through a mandatory 30-minute lecture on the benefits of union membership. Employers are barred from presenting the other side. In America? Is this crazy or what?

These laws, which show disdain for working people, are dead in the water. The justices anticipated such shenanigans. The ruling specified that union fees cannot be extracted from a nonmember unless "the employee affirmatively consents to pay." Unions will have to convince nonmembers to opt in. Forget about opt out.

Politicians who pushed anti-Janus provisions are the same ones who support lavish union contracts and work rules that explode the cost of public services.

In Connecticut, Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives Joe Aresimowicz, sets the rules for union negotiations. Unbelievably, he's a member of AFSCME himself. Thanks to this cronyism, Connecticut has the second-highest state and local tax burden in the nation after  you guessed it  New York.

The shameful politicians who plotted to weasel around the Janus ruling were blocked Wednesday. Janus will have impact. Workers can choose to support a union or spend their pay in other ways. With union political clout diminished, John Q. Taxpayer's views will count for more. It's a promising first step toward lowering the cost of government.


Betsy McCaughey is a senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research and a former lieutenant governor of New York State. 
COPYRIGHT 2018 CREATORS.COM

Question of the Week   
Which one of the following asked “Which office do I go to to get my reputation back?”
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Christine Blasey Ford's lawyer has announced that Ms. Ford will not testify until the FBI completes yet another investigation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh that everyone knows will never happen.It was already highly unlikely she was ever going to testify; this is a convenient excuse, a stalling game. But it is more than the usual cheap political stunt. It's vicious, ugly, and more than slightly sadistic…[more]
 
 
—Roger L. Simon, PJ Media Co-Founder and CEO Emeritus
— Roger L. Simon, PJ Media Co-Founder and CEO Emeritus
 
Liberty Poll   

Which one of the following U.S. Senators do you believe behaved most dishonorably during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court?