Very interesting comment, Nathan. And you're probably right to assume that the 9th Circuit's en banc decision from last year will not be the only word on this important subject.

Is there going to be a court challenge to this. I'm in the IBEW and my immediate rep. didn't know about it(although these shit bags did release it late Friday).

So when does this shareholding union member (IATSE) get to demand a refund from the company of which I own a piece for their political activity of which I disapprove? (They are deep in the California Recall effort.)

You've misstated the holding of the Beck case. It only applies to NON-union members.

Although management and a union may, in a collective bargaining agreement, agree that non-union employees be required to contribute financially to the union, the Beck case held that this contribution may only include the proportionate cost of actual bargaining, and not include the cost of political activities of the union.

John- you're right, although explaining the difference between "union members" and those paying mandatory "agency fees" is always a bit tricky.

But in the general public mind, everyone covered by a union contract paying fees to the union are seen as "union members."

But I should have been clearer.

Stating Beck's holding correctly is important because the right (e.g. the Wall Street Journal editorial page) has consistently misled on this issue, claiming that union political activity violates union MEMBERS' rights and that "the Beck decision isn't being enforced."

Don't really buy it, John, since the common sense view of most people will be that if you are paying agency fees, you are essentially a member and, if they buy the NRTW line, it's oppressive to pay for political stuff out of those agency fees. That someone is paying the agency fees but loses the right to vote for union leadership doesn't suddenly make that big a difference.

The whole agency fee versus membership fee distinction is just lost on most folks (rightly so, since it's a somewhat bizarre court-created contrivance.)

I don't think the distinction between (1) agency fees paid by non-members and (2) union dues paid by members is just a "contrivance".

Union members get to vote on their union leaders. If dues are spent contrary to their views, they can vote for new leaders. Non-union members don't have that leverage, so perhaps it's appropriate to put more scrutiny on what they have to pay for.

And in any event, there is no law prohibiting political expenditures, by duly elected officers, of union DUES paid by voting union MEMBERS, despite the right's concerted effort to create this myth. After 8 years of false accusations that a Democratic administration was "not enforcing the Beck decision", a Republican Labor Department is now seeking to hamper unions' political activities. I expect the offered justification for this action will be that this is just an overdue enforcement of the law, but that's not true.