Supreme Court says union must give notice to nonmembers before collecting dues increase

[The Northerner]

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that unions must give nonmembers an immediate chance to object to unexpected fee increases or special assessments that all workers are required to pay in closed-shop situations.

The court ruled for Dianne Knox and other nonmembers of the Service Employees International Union’s Local 1000, who wanted to object and opt out of a $12 million special assessment the union required from its California public sector members for political campaigning. Knox and others said the union did not give them a legally required notice that the increase was coming.

The union, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said the annual notice that the union gives was sufficient. The high court disagreed in a 7-2 judgment written by Justice Samuel Alito.

“When a public-sector union imposes a special assessment or dues increase, the union must provide a fresh ... notice and may not exact any funds from nonmembers without their affirmative consent,” Alito said.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-says-union-must-give-notice-to-nonmembers-before-collecting-dues-increase/2012/06/21/gJQAPKbksV_story.html

[bluestateguy]

1. Sotomayor and Ginsburg voted with the majority

I don't know all the weeds of this case, but I do think that it is reasonable to expect that people be told when fees are increasing: and that goes for unions, corporations or anyone with whom you have a business relationship.

[FBaggins]

3. With as sharply divided as this court has been...

... I have to assume that any 7-2 decision is a pretty solid one.

Unless it was 7-2 on some narrow point but 5-4 on the reasoning?

[Seeking Serenity]

7. It was 7-2 on the judgment.

Sotomayor and Ginsburg concurred in the judgment, but wrote separately because they disagreed with the majority on a finer point of law. Breyer and Kagan dissented.

[Bandit]

2. Sometimes the Unions give the other side all the ammunition they need.

[Seeking Serenity]

6. These weren't union members

These were non-members in an agency shop. Non-members can be assessed for the costs of actual collective bargaining activities, since they benefit too, but, according to this ruling, they have to be given an "opt-in" chance before paying for purely political activities.

[Seeking Serenity]

16. Agency shop

An agency shop is a form of union security agreement where the employer may hire union or non-union workers, and employees need not join the union in order to remain employed. However, the non-union worker must pay a fee to cover collective bargaining costs. The fee paid by non-union members under the agency shop is known as the "agency fee."

Where the agency shop is illegal, as is common in labor law governing American public sector unions, a "fair share provision" may be agreed to by the union and the employer. The provision requires non-union employees a pay "fair share fee" to cover the costs of the union's collective bargaining activities. The "fair share" is similar to the agency shop, but usually more restrictive as to what may be charged to the non-member.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_shop

[Omaha Steve]

19. My contract (AFSCME LOCAL 251) has a fair share provision

It is only valid IF the states passes fair share. It ain't going to happen.

Public or private, there is no fair share law in Nebraska. One of the first states to pass right to work (for less).

OS

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. "special assessments for political funds"

What if they don't agree with the political activity?

[Seeking Serenity]

17. There's a distinct difference between collective bargaining activities

and political activities. The two things are NOT the same.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. People should not be forced to give up their livelihoods over special assessments

It would be no different if an employer came to an employee and levied an unannounced special assessment to support a political activity in favor of the business. Yes, the employee may directly or indirectly benefit from the policy preference but the employer has no right to make ambush payment demands particularly over the employee's objections. No one should be forced to support political activities they disagree with and telling them to just quit their jobs (translated -- lose their family incomes) is not pro-worker.

[christx30]

12. I work for a cable company. My company

Has a PAC that we can join, if we choose to. I looked at their stances and their "victories" and that was enough for me to say "hell no" when they asked if I want to contribute. "yay! We were able to stop a school district from setting up their own cable network to help the kids learn, so the schools HAVE to buy from us!"
I won't contribute to crap like that. Not my time or my money.
So yeah... What if the union is taking a stance on an issue that you disagree with? Shouldn't you be allowed to refuse to contribute? What of the union was pro-apartide or something? You should be able to tell them to take a flying leap.

[jade3000]

18. Makes sense to me

Seems reasonable to (a) give notice and (b) allow people to opt out of a political campaign contribution.

[christx30]

23. I never

Disputed unions in themselves. What I had a problem with is unions forcing members to contribute to political campaigns that they may or may not agree with. I used apartide as an extreme example, but it still fits. You get 12 people in a room and you pose an issue to them, you're going to get 12 different opinions. And one of those people is going to have an opinion that might be totally different (like night and day) from the rest. And that's ok. What is not ok is for the 11 of them to force #12 to give money to support everyone else's ideals.
And that cable thing wasn't a union thing. It was my company looking out for itself. What could be wrong with a school district of a large city being independent of a national cable company?
I have the right not to buy stock if I disagree with where the money is going. I have the right to not join my companu's PAC if I disagree with the issues. But I go to work to help my customers, meet fun people, and earn a paycheck. I don't go there to be mugged in favor of someone else's political ideas. If your ideas and beliefs are worthy, they will win on their own. But let me decide where my money goes.

[madrchsod]

5. sounds fair to me

[underpants]

9. When I heard this I let out an OMG then NPR explained that it should be WTF

First of all courts for years have held that these fees are okay because without paying these fees non-members are "free riders" and get collective bargaining for free.

In this ruling the court countered what they established in Citizens United. Coporations can contribute money to political causes (not campaigns or parties) in unlimited amounts with no regard for shareholders' concerns OR (not pointed out in the NPR piece) taxpayers' concerns for corporations receiving tax incentives like Walmart not paying property tax as part of their business model. Unions, after this ruling, can't contribute money to political causes (not campaigns or parties) because of the concerns of non-union members.

The kicker is that in Citizens United the court went beyond the case to state that the contributions do not have to disclosed. In this case the court went beyond to say that there has to be an "opt in" (not an "opt out&quot which was not part of the case. Breyer apparently gave an oral dissent today railing the court for adding on to this ruling when the parties had not been able to air their side.

What this signals is that this court is so partisan and out of control that Scalia is willing to rule against himself in Raich v. Gonzales and overturn Obamacare.

[Joe Bacon]

13. So when will stockholders be given the same rights?

OK, you seven clowns on the court...We're waiting....and waiting...and waiting...and waiting...

[SnakeEyes]

14. Umm..

Is it really fair to compare voluntary investment with involuntary union dues?

Stockholders can sell off their investments or choose not to invest further.

[wobblie]

15. Beck decision all over

I do not know all the facts in this case, but one point keep in mind. This involves California "public sector" workers. This workers are not covered under the National Labor Relations Act. There is a decision from the late 80's called Beck
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Workers_of_America_v._Beck

which prohibited Unions from collecting members ( or non-members working in agency shops) political contributions with out that members consent. This has become a standard through out private industry. State Public Service workers are not covered under the Federal NLRA (and in some states public service unions are illegal