Advertisement

LJWorld.com weblogs Statehouse Live

Brownback signs into law the paycheck deductions bill that KNEA opposes

Advertisement

Without comment, Gov. Sam Brownback on Monday signed into law a bill that bars public employee unions from taking voluntary deductions from members' paychecks to help finance political activities.

House Bill 2022 was sought by the Kansas Chamber of Commerce and conservative legislators.

They argued that state and local government agencies processing payrolls shouldn't be involved in the transactions that divert money to political action committees. They also contended that people were being coerced into making this contributions.

Opponents, including the Kansas National Education Association and Kansas Organization of State Employees, said the paycheck deductions are voluntary and the bill was a thinly disguised attempt to weaken the political influence of public employee unions.

Comments

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 4 months ago

"Without comment, Gov. Sam Brownback on Monday signed into law a bill that bars public employee unions from taking voluntary deductions from members' paychecks to help finance political activities."

His signature was a big middle finger to teachers and other public employees all by itself.

17

Thomas Bryce 1 year, 4 months ago

When I sign the check for MY voluntary donation to the Union, I will be using MY middle finger. Thanks Kansas Legislature. I will think of you every time I write that check. 26 times a year, to be exact.

4

chootspa 1 year, 4 months ago

Set up a scheduled payment through your bank and save the paper check fees. It's an automated middle finger.

2

Thomas Bryce 1 year, 4 months ago

Cool! Works for me. Wonder if The Kansas Legislature will tackle THAT angle next?

1

chootspa 1 year, 4 months ago

Nah. They'll just ban the union next.

1

4getabouit 1 year, 4 months ago

Wow! What a major piece of legislation. Apparently the teachers have such influence on the workings of state government that education has been cut 12% over the past few years. This will stop those pesky teachers from wielding such superior power.

Maybe our pious governor will now support legislation limits the legislative dinners he hosts for his cronies. He seems to live his life by two sets of rules. He's a fraud and a coward.

18

question4u 1 year, 4 months ago

Internet shopping from out-of-state vendors: a great way to thank the Kansas Chamber of Commerce for its hard work of undermining your children's education. The only down side is that if you buy online you won't get to pay Brownback's increased sales tax and have the privilege of taking up the slack for all of those business owners who pay no state income tax.

8

nominalize 1 year, 4 months ago

Aren't we supposed to pay a use tax on out-of-state purchases?

0

Catalano 1 year, 4 months ago

Actually, I think the first line should read:

House Bill 2022 was BOUGHT by the Kansas Chamber of Commerce who PAID OFF conservative legislators.

11

George_Braziller 1 year, 4 months ago

I'm pretty sure this piece of legislation will end up in court. Oh, wait, maybe not. Herr Brownback is still working on trying to castrate the judicial branch.

8

chootspa 1 year, 4 months ago

The final bill wasn't as heinous as the earlier versions, from what I understand.

0

1 year, 4 months ago

Prohibits payroll deductions for political purposes. Nothing else as I read it.

0

chootspa 1 year, 4 months ago

The earlier version had an overly broad definition of "political purposes" and would have basically prohibited any sort of free speech by KNEA members. This bill prohibits paycheck deductions to the PAC specifically.

0

JJE007 1 year, 4 months ago

Bownbeak is creating his own NANNY (nanny boo boo) STATE!

Brown salad Nanny...

G.O P.'s got our grannies!

Everybody said it was a shame...

That our mamas' now work on a Brownbeak chain-gang

(a wretched, spiteful, straight-razor totin' 'oman,..

Lords make mercy, not a mess of it!)

4

grandnanny 1 year, 4 months ago

No, the law says that all dues for any professional organization such as KNEA, AFT, etc. cannot be deducted from our paycheck. Only $20 of dues goes to the PAC and that is voluntary. You have to approve it or it won't be taken out. If it were only the PAC money, there argument might hold water, but it is all dues and no one is coerced to belong to the organization.

2

1 year, 4 months ago

Grand, maybe I am reading the bill wrong, but I don't see the language that supports your statement. Please paste it.

Here is the language I see in the bill and it doesn't prohibit dues from being deducted but only how those dues can be used.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Kansas: New Section 1. (a) It shall be a prohibited practice for any profes- sional employees’ organization, as defined in K.S.A. 72-5413, and amend- ments thereto, or public employee organization, as defined in K.S.A. 75- 4322, and amendments thereto, to use any dues, fees, money or other assessments deducted from a member’s paycheck for the purpose of en- gaging in partisan or political purposes as defined in subsection (d). A professional employees’ organization or public employee organization may not require any contribution to a candidate, personal campaign com- mittee, political action committee, registered political party, or political fund as a condition of membership or participation in the professional employees’ organization or public employee organization.

1

jafs 1 year, 4 months ago

D is unnecessary - it's already illegal to require anything of the sort.

And, if a is the only thing passed, it's relatively toothless, but thereby also useless.

What's in b and c?

2

George_Braziller 1 year, 4 months ago

Once someone is paid it's their money. You CAN'T legislate how they voluntarily chose to spend it.

1

Lane Signal 1 year, 4 months ago

I think Brownie and his jackals have a slightly obscured agenda here. They realize that teachers are increasingly going to turn against this administration, not just with apathetic resignation, but eventually they will become more vocal. Teachers have often been divided about state government, but the continuing cuts will make it harder and harder to find defenders of these awful policies among educators. As educators realize they speak with one voice, they may be able to rally support from a community who looks to them to best understand how to effectively serve the needs of our children. I think the $$ involved here are not enough for the radical right to be concerned. The real goal is to paint the teachers as underhanded PAC contributors who are trying to have undue influence over politics. Now I realize many will say that is ridiculous because the administration supports unfettered PAC activity and wants unlimited and unaccounted contributions but I think the aim is to make the teachers look like dirty backroom politicians. I don't think it will work. The hypocrisy is too thick.

1

OonlyBonly 1 year, 4 months ago

Oh the Liberals are out in force over this one! Great! I guess under Liberalism it's okay for a Union to coerce an member to donate "automatically" to a Union PAC.

0

Thomas Bryce 1 year, 4 months ago

Jesus's Teachings are Liberal in Content. So, Do YOU have something against Jesus Christ too?

2

LHS1980 1 year, 4 months ago

A prime example of the lack of higher education.

1

Thomas Bryce 1 year, 4 months ago

Go ahead Gov. Brownback. Make all the changes you want. But, Know This: Nothing you change now,cannot be changed back or to something else entirely Later. You are NOT a Prophet. YOU ARE not WRITING IN STONE. IT CAN ALL BE AMENDED OR THROWN OUT LATER. Hope this does not ruin your Good Ole Boy's Back slapping Party. The will of the People will Prevail. Just takes time. Do you STILL want to be like Texas?

2

weeslicket 1 year, 4 months ago

here is the part of this law which is troublesome:

(d) (1) It shall be a prohibited practice for a public employee organ- ization to endorse candidates, spend any of its income, directly or indi- rectly, for partisan or political purposes or engage in any kind of activity advocating or opposing the election of candidates for any public office. (2) For the purposes of this section, ‘‘partisan or political purposes’’ means an act done with the intent or in a way to influence or tend to influence, directly or indirectly, any person to refrain from voting or to vote for or against any candidate for public office at any caucus, political convention, primary or election.

that seems to be in direct conflict with the 1st amendment rights of US citizens.

1

1 year, 4 months ago

I see your point, but wonder if this applies to their PAC too?

I missed this when I read the bill yesterday and wonder, like you stated, how it isn't a violation of the First amendment.

0

jafs 1 year, 4 months ago

It is a violation of that.

When it gets to court, I'm sure that will be the outcome.

I thought they took that out of the final bill?

1

nominalize 1 year, 4 months ago

if anything, it runs afoul of the Citizens United decision.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.