to take into account what the money of course said which is that expenses that are incurred with regard to lobbying that are for example appropriations for correct the bargaining agreement but those are also chargeable so based on this decision in trickily clear that while matters would have to do with terms and conditions of employment are matters of found this may not be the exact words politically important that they also said that's not that's generally not so private sector precisely because in the public sector the employer is the government now the nd new rule of the announcers this rule that at the time of the union provides its major categories of expense to an objective not a member of that that point of impact that they to provide a copy of an order of a commission buyer and they arrive at that conclusion and they make that announcement for that new rule based on two findings one is that they claim that the absence of that letter in this case resulted in on certainty for these objectors uncertainty as to whether or not the expenses that the union made a claim to have made were not actually made and there is absolutely zero in the record and i the employee the latter i don't think there is any harm in that i think what we say in our paper so you are simply this it makes sense was to provide information that is relevant at this stage of the process  if i may come back to your point about the litigation of the say in our papers this is a presumption that the board makes is that the union should not be trusted when it says that the figures have been verified and what i say in my paper sure ari said if we are required by law understood so that as i say in terms of that nd of the nd rule you know there isn't any evidence in the record on the uncertainty there's no record of the evidence on preventing them from making an informed decision in terms of the supreme court precedent going back to the charge ability issue the supreme court has never held it has never held not in st not in bed not in the winter and none of these cases that these expenses are a person i am not in charge obligation to represent this folks whether they are members or not but they have to pay their fair share of the costs that we incur in doing that and if you look at two particular pieces of legislation on the run of the highway for the court in our papers one was a piece of legislation that we lobbied in rhode island that calls for payments to be made from the state to the hospital and the collective bargaining agreement said that when that money comes in it has to go to pay increases for pardoning employees whether they were genuine members or not similarly through a monumental health funding we lobbied for them and the collective bargaining said wrong that the employer and the union would cooperate together at the state house and to win the money came in if it did it would go to pay increase emplate in the way that i just described your honor i try to use those two examples there are seven pieces of legislation that i try to use to so the connection there is where we actually negotiated right into the collective but that's the that's the that's the relationship as the bargain agent is that you represent those folks and you do so in good faith uncomfortable when answering that question because i didn't cry because for me to really speculate about the work of these other unions who they represent what they get paid thank you limited and the supreme court has explained this in several cases plainly unions and exact fines from employees floor are the purposes of defraying the expenses involved in collective bargaining and that is as i believe the court has already recognized collective bargaining involves dealings with the employer and labor management issues just as plainly the statutory authorization and we know this from the street case does not allow unions to use exacted employee funds overtly or objection to find political causes or political activities and contrary to the union's claims in this case i have performance direct performance of its representational function in dealing with the employer so that and this is consistent with the alice decision of a certain supreme court those tunnels and whe contract administration and grave and such as men pursuing disputes that arise from the bargaining unit these are the range of normal activities that occur in collective bargaining and again critical bargaining is dealing wit don't literally directly involved dealing with the employer but then necessary as an antecedent to dealing with the employer and those are normal inside and those under the supreme court's decision analysis those kinds of activities of the st for example the supreme court recognized that the purpose of mandating and compelling agency was to prevent free riders people who enjoy the negotiated benefits of a collective bargaining agreement without paying for them paying their fair share of them do not drive that mechanism in this is very clear from street to the congress and acting these guys did not want to mandate ideological that it maybe is a union's view that it's in the best interest of employees to bobby for this legislation but there may be objecting employees with a need for units who don't want to pay for that because they don't agree and the street  scalia very briefly that the free rider problem that the supreme court was concerned with in the face cases including st and that was the person who enjoys the benefits that are negotiated in corrective brightening without paying their fair share it was not concerned with free riders as a general proposition in this whole area too we have actually don't even have any st amendment issues to you know private employer so it's all sort of  employees a distance with any and have certain rights and those rights the often limited authorization of being in security agreements balances that accommodates the interests of the union and having a certain baseline amount of funding for their charge wish to make a few points this morning about the n l r b is rather narrow and unsurprising ruling that nonmembers cannot be required to pay for union to walk the efforts with the government  that fits comfortably with the all of the supreme court and circuit cases to go right to some of your honor's questions nobody is saying that unions cannot wobble the question is whether they can force and get employees fired for non payment of expenses regarding that lobbying regarding the positions that unions take on public policy issues in street decision in miller of the d c circuit opinion by judge silberman obviously not controlling here in this court but judge silberman discussed the slippery slope that goes if you say that well some of this on issues that tug at the heartstrings about safety and worker protections that if you allow that you're basically allowing other hypothetical the test is the statutory duty east test what is the union obligated to provide the nonmember the in is obligated to provide then collective bargaining and contract and force made with the employer the union has no duty to walk before the government as the exclusive representative of the national labor relations act which is what we're looking at it we're looking at a statute that says unions are the exclusive analysis i think that something that the courts look at when we're in some gray area but there is no gray area with regard to political lobbying to political activity for the same reasons that again i go back to miller because i think that's the best analysis of this line of cases from street and back on down once you open the door to the union say well we have no statutory duty to lobby for may not be a st amendment issue but the n r a and i put this in the brief the n r a has a commitment to free speech on all sides where they will get cases like chamber of commerce street ground or fish or what have you eat rouse for free speech from all sides and the section seven right includes the right to refight and so i would ask the court to look at this case from the point of view of an individual employee wishes to exercise her right to refrain and even if you say that's not a st amendment right the injury to her is the same as it was her st amendment right her money is being used for her lobbying purposes that she this is not agree with that's the injury and one last point if i may in st i submit just this lack was correct when he said when room yes i do will and i will also say i pointed this out in my grief the main case is california so i and others took ten and twenty years to get engaged because there's something about these cases that just seem to take a long