Supreme Court Imposes New Political Dues Requirement on Unions

[marmar]

Supreme Court Imposes New Political Dues Requirement on Unions


The U.S. Supreme Court has handed anti-labor forces a major victory that could not be achieved by a GOP-sponsored 2005 California ballot measure by requiring that all employees represented by a union be given the chance to opt-out of paying emergency fees to be used in union political campaigns.

The Court’s conservative majority said a special political dues assessment during the summer of 2005 by the Service Employee International Union of all the state employees it represented--both union and non-union members--was an “indefensible” violation of non-members First Amendment rights to not be forced into “compelled speech and compelled association.”

The net effect of the ruling will be to impose a new administrative procedure on unions in political fights that will take time and cost money, said Justice Stephen Breyer, in a dissent joined by Justice Elena Kagan.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg agreed with the decision, but said the court’s conservative majority raised First Amendment issues that were not in the initial lawsuit and accused their colleagues of judicial activism. ..............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/989518/supreme_court_imposes_new_political_dues_requirement_on_unions/

[FLAprogressive]

1. more like Ruth Traitor Ginsburg....

[elleng]

2. ...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. Oh good grief

Yes, let's just throw out her entire body of work over decades over a single ruling. Let's not even take a moment to ask if she might have a point let's just declare her anathema and excommunicate her.

How are you on the theory of heliocentrism?

[elleng]

12. THANKS, Nuc!

[snot]

3. Then can we get a rule

prohibiting corps. from political spending without individual shareholder consents???

[brendan120678]

7. Totally different...

Nobody is forcing shareholders to buy those stock shares.

These non-union members are forced to give money to a union they may not even want to belong to for a cause they may not believe in.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

14. No one is forcing those employees to work in a union shop

Your analogy needs a little work.

[brendan120678]

16. It's State government, not exactly a "union shop" (nt)

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

17. The common denominator is employment

Union activity whether for a public employer or private is what gives that employment its extra value, whether salary or benefits. Let those who don't want to pay work elsewhere and not exploit those who have sacrificed and fought for rights by opting out. They are perfectly free to work for Walmart. Employment is the common denominator and the value of that employment, just like stock ownership in a corporation is dependent for its value on the activity and investment of all the owners, is due to the work of union membership.

[Pab Sungenis]

4. "Sonia Sotomayor...agreed with the decision"

"But we HAVE to re-elect Obama because otherwise the Court will keep moving to the right."

One more reason to hold our noses and vote for Obama in November, but start working on finding a REAL progressive Democrat for 2016.

[brendan120678]

5. I must say, I agree with the Court's ruling on this one...

I don't see how any other judgment could even be considered.

[unreadierLizard]

9. Agreed.

Read it again, folks:

" all employees represented by a union be given the chance to opt-out of paying emergency fees to be used in union political campaigns. "

It sounds to me like it means union members are given a choice if they want their money put towards political movements or not. That doesn't sound like union busting to me.

[brendan120678]

13. Of course, the conservatives and Tea Party-types will...

They'll try to spin it as an anti-union ruling.

In fact, it is more pro-employee choice. The unions can continue to collect money for political causes, they just have to be sure everyone is notified and given a chance to opt-out.

[Teamster Jeff]

8. More Union Busting tactics. Now endorsed by SCOTUS

Yet companies aren't required to notify shareholders when they fund some scummy right-wing organization.

[brendan120678]

15. As I mentioned above, that's a totally unbalanced comparison.

Nobody is forced to purchase stock in a company.

Certain employees are forced to join unions, however, or at least pay a "fee" for the collective bargaining - even if they don't want to.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

18. Their salary and benefits depend on that union activity

No one is forced to work for that employer. But if they do, they enjoy benefits available through union efforts and they should pay for it. Or do you honestly think their salary and benefits would be granted out of the goodness of the employer's heart without collective bargaining?

[Sgent]

20. I have mixed feelings about that

you can be represented by a union -- and pay their fees -- without being a member.

If your not a member, I think its highly questionable that you can be forced to give money for political activism not related to bargaining / negotiation for jobs, benefits, etc.

[Teamster Jeff]

21. It's highly questionable

that you be represented and not pay full dues. The next step is "Right to Work" (for less)

[Teamster Jeff]

19. Nobody is forced to join a Union

If a person doesn't want to join a Union they can go work at a company that is non union. If they don't want to pay a fee for collective bargaining they can do the same.

[Major Hogwash]

10. Judicial activism??

The cons on the court??
Naw!!
No way!!!

[Robb]

11. It's the right decision. I'm 3rd generation UA.

It's fair. Of course I'd rather it have gone the other way, but it's fair.