The Supreme Court has wrapped up releasing its decisions today, and no decisions were released in the Obamacare or Arizona immigration law cases.
The key decision released today was a loss for SEIU on imposing fee assessments on non-members for political purposes. The case is being portrayed as perhaps more broad than it really is. I haven’t followed it closely, but the decision is here. At first glance, it appears to be a more technical reading of the law and what types of notice has to be given, than the “smackdown” it is being described as in reports.
Update on SEIU: Okay, on further reading, SEIU did get smacked down and has to follow an opt-in rather than opt-out procedure when imposing fees on non-members for political purposes:
In this case, we decide whether the First Amendment allows a public-sector union to require objecting nonmembers to pay a special fee for the purpose of financing the union’s political and ideological activities….
By authorizing a union to collect fees from nonmembersand permitting the use of an opt-out system for the collection of fees levied to cover nonchargeable expenses, our prior decisions approach, if they do not cross, the limit ofwhat the First Amendment can tolerate. The SEIU, however, asks us to go farther. It asks us to approve a procedure under which (a) a special assessment billed for use in electoral campaigns was assessed without providing anew opportunity for nonmembers to decide whether theywished to contribute to this effort and (b) nonmemberswho previously opted out were nevertheless required to pay more than half of the special assessment eventhough the union had said that the purpose of the fund was to mount a political campaign and that it would not be used for ordinary union expenses. This aggressive useof power by the SEIU to collect fees from nonmembers isindefensible….
To respect the limits of the First Amendment, the union should have sent out a new notice allowing nonmembers toopt in to the special fee rather than requiring them to opt out. Our cases have tolerated a substantial impingement on First Amendment rights by allowing unions to imposean opt-out requirement at all. Even if this burden can be justified during the collection of regular dues on an annual basis, there is no way to justify the additional burden of imposing yet another opt-out requirement to collect specialfees whenever the union desires….
Therefore, when a public-sector union imposes a special assessment or dues increase, the union must provide a fresh Hudson notice and may not exact any funds from nonmembers without their affirmative consent.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Did I see that right? 7:2 decision on a union case?
And ANOTHER 9th Circus reversal…??? Those guys HAVE to be depressed?
Maybe Nanny Pelosi can go out and arrest somebody when she’s in Kulhifornia next. THAT would be good for a laugh!
The handwriting’s on the wall.
opt-in is significant but the SEIU is an extremely racist bunch, think it will matter much when they have a record of driving out anyone not of color nor like mindset?
If there has been anything worse for unions than an Obama administration I can’t think of it. Why they would work to reelect him is absolutely beyond me.
Actually, it was 5-2 on the opt-in part. Sotomayor and Ginsburg concurred only on the Hudson notice part.
Correct me if I am wrong, please, but doesn’t this have Scott Walker-like repercussions for unions throughout the entire country. Because of an arrogant move by the SEIU and a stupid [but typical] opinion by the 9th circuit. Talk about the Law of Unintended Consequences…
I wonder if this expands workers’ rights further than Beck, especially those in unions against their will.
It reinforces Beck by changing opt-out to opt-in [that should be worth a hefty percentage loss of contributions], and disallowing fictional definitions of non-political activities such as “lobbying the electorate.” In other words, political advertising by unions aimed at the public have to be claimed as a political expense rather than an “educational expense.”
Another major hit to the extortion of political contributions.
Basically, it makes sure that Beck is enforced honestly. And honesty is the greatest weapon possible against today’s unions.
If you think for one second this will change the way unions operate, I’m afraid you’re mistaken.
Nuance and language games…
“So sue me!….see you in court…again…and again..”
Leftist make the law…..they don’t follow them.
Until SCOTUS rules that use of union funds to defend unconstitutional actions comprises “political activity”. Whereupon, the compulsory portion of union dues cannot be used therefor.
Given the language of this decision, it seems possible that many lower Courts will jump on that bandwagon starting now.
This may be, ultimately, more significant than the Obamacare decision.
This will not stop the unions. They will just continue doing what they do, that is illegal, until someone else takes them to court.
Beck laws are very clear. But just try to get your union rep to provide you with the paper work to be a “dues paying only” member. Hell, the CWA does not even advise new members that they are not required to contribute, via payroll deductions, to the CWA PAC. They just sign the member up as if it is A-OK to deduct PAC contributions.
I remember how a group of AT&T workers at one shop asked their union rep to provide them with the forms to opt-out of PAC contributions. Their union rep was out of the Austin CWA local which is one of the largest locals in the U.S. After three months of stonewalling by the CWA (telling them they would get the paper work to the members soon; then the members could only opt-out at certain times of the year, etc) 90% of those members simply dropped their union membership since Texas is a right to work state.
I continually receive CWA newsletters, both local and national. It is clear the local newsletter is printed by using due money, but still, every election they publish the candidates they support, all Democrats. In any publication by unions that advocate for one party, or another, they are not supposed to use union dues, only PAC money, to do that.
I send my union news letters to my Congressman every month to show the continuing violations by the CWA. Crickets. No one, AND I DO MEAN NO ONE, in D.C. has the cajones to take on the unions, even in a right to work state. So while we may cheer the decision of SCOTUS on this one, it’s not worth the paper its written on because the unions will continue to ignore it just as they have ignored Beck.
I am quite glad that the SCOTUS decided to delay the announcement on Obamacare for another week.
They know – each and every single one of them – that the individual mandate is nothing else than coercion. A contract denotes consent amongst at least two parties. One party forcing the other into a contract does not denote consent. So, this at least should be struck down.
Not to mention that the states have a very good justification for their lawsuit: Obamacare would bankrupt the states. Instead of having revenues for the usual duties of the state (roads, bridges, police, fire, etc.), they’d have to spend a huge lot of their revenues on health care?!?!? And let’s not even mention Obamacare’s stance against freedom of religious conscience.
The SCOTUS knows that a huge segment of our economy depends on what they think, not to mention the financial future of the state and Federal governments. To have so much depend on the opinions of nine people must be a huge burden. They have to proceed with caution, or they can screw it up monumentally.
Thinking the Supremes are viewing this as a referee making the final call on a soccer match in S. America-
team tea party vs. #OWS
Knowing full well there is nothing dangerous or violent about ruling against team tea party-
To be clear-
I mean saving the most volatile rulings for last–then run like hell!
One of the delicious ironies here is that the extorted money was used, among other things, to defeat a proposition in California that would have required opt-in rather than opt-out for the optional part of the dues.
The proposition failed: SCOTUS just replaced that with a Federal fiat which says exactly that, except on a national basis.
One of the potentially juicy [I’m using food metaphors here, being in middle of lunch] consequences is a flurry of lawsuits against the unions in federal court for violation of constitutional rights. Regardless of the outcome, discovery will be a sight to behold. Especially when the unions are forced [no doubt kicking and screaming, after a protracted legal battle] to reveal exactly what they spend the money on.
Despite Law, SEIU Gets To Continue Taking Medicaid Check Money
http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/17115
Feel free to read the whole thing–and tell me how the leftist army..er…public employee unions will abide by any law they deem “unfair” (to them).
SEIU will take in $35 million in 8 years???
Must be from turning illegal pot dealers into medical marijuana “union” home caregivers.
From what I’ve seen, shouldn’t they just forward all 9th Circuit cases directly to SCOTUS?
I would save a lot of time and money.
Let the 9th go party in Hawaii 24/7 365, the nation and the reputation of jurisprudence would go up.
From what I’ve seen…
Anytime Eric Holder writes something using his official letterhead…
The Supreme Court docket fills up-