SCOTUS Rules that Unions Cannot Forcibly Borrow Money from Non-Members

[lawrocket 3]

And by a 7-2 margin, the SCOTUS slapped the SEIU.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1121c4d6.pdf

It turns out that there is a recognized First Amendment interest for people who are not full members of unions. By this I mean there are people who must pay dues to unions for collective bargaining to avoid "free-riding" on union efforts but may opt out of paying for political purposes, lobbying, etc.

Back in 2005, the Governator had a couple of ballot initiatives. The SEIU didn't like them, so it immediately assessed $12 million dollars in special dues to fight the initiatives. In the event that a non-member objected to the taking, the SEIU would pay the money back. Cross their heart and hope to die. They swear.

The SCOTUS found that this assessment was violative of the First Amendment rights of these non-members to not have their money going towards political processes. They said previously they didn't want to support it, and they MUST be given notice and opportunity to object before their money is stolen borrowed for use in support of policies that they don't want in the first place.

I suspect that there are plenty of people who would agree that this seems pretty straightforward - don't take money from people for political purposes and promise to pay them back later if they didn't like it. But I also suppose that there are plenty who will look and say, "But it's a union. They are special, such good things and therefore it should be fine."

Note again - this was 7-2.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[GQ_jumper 4]

And the fact that 2 judges voted in favor is fairly unbelievable. One would think it is a no-brainer.

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

And the fact that 2 judges voted in favor is fairly unbelievable. One would think it is a no-brainer.

The two dissenters: "JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN joins,dissenting".

[quade 4]

Quote

And the fact that 2 judges voted in favor is fairly unbelievable. One would think it is a no-brainer.

How DARE they have different opinions! Oh wait, that happens in almost every decision.

Just be thankful it's not one of those ridiculous 5/4 decision splits exactly down party lines.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Zep 0]

Quote

Quote

And the fact that 2 judges voted in favor is fairly unbelievable. One would think it is a no-brainer.

How DARE they have different opinions! Oh wait, that happens in almost every decision.

Just be thankful it's not one of those ridiculous 5/4 decision splits exactly down party lines.

Wait a minute. didn't Thatcher break those dastardly unions once and for all.

Oh, my wrong that was a better time and a different place.

Gone fishing

[kallend 2,182]

Do shareholders get similar treatment if they object to corporate political donations they don't agree with?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[muff528 3]

Quote

Do shareholders get similar treatment if they object to corporate political donations they don't agree with?

Better! A shareholder is free to dump their stock in that company and invest in a corporation that shares his political/business philosophy. Why would an investor bet on a company that he feels is making decisions (in the form of political donations) that are detrimental to it's business health?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

And the fact that 2 judges voted in favor is fairly unbelievable. One would think it is a no-brainer.

The dissenters AGREED that dissenting non-members have the right to opt out of the contributions. They dissented, however, on the basis that they did not believe that they should be required to opt-in to the payment. They think the union should be able to take the money unless objected to. The majority believes that the unions should get the consent before taking the money.

Also note - this decision only applies to public employee unions. It's the "public" part of this that makes it a First Amendment issue. Therefore, anyone arguing that private company unions (or corporate shareholders, etc.) have a similar First Amendment right are looking at the wrong opinion.

So my reading was that the dissent didn't really "dissent." Everybody agreed that the SEIU was underhanded. Except the Ninth Circuit

edited to add: Of note in this case is the issue of mootness. The 9th Circuit found it moot because the SEIU did, indeed, pay back the money BEFORE the appeal was heard. So there was no longer a justiciable controversy.

The SCOTUS decided that this case is not moot because the SEIU will, most certainly, do it again. This is along the lines of challenges to abortion restrictions - by the time the SCOTUS hears it there's a 5 year old kid, and the whole issue is mooted because, well, the court can't find that the kid should be allowed to be aborted.

So this was an issue likely to be repeated, and the SCOTUS cut off the possibility that the SEIU (or other public unions) can do this over and over and repaying before the case is heard.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[muff528 3]

Quote

.........

Also note - this decision only applies to public employee unions. It's the "public" part of this that makes it a First Amendment issue. Therefore, anyone arguing that private company unions (or corporate shareholders, etc.) have a similar First Amendment right are looking at the wrong opinion.......

Good for pointing that out. That seems to me to make this ruling even more important than it appears on the surface. (I mean it might have more ramifications than was intended with respect to applying Constitutional protections or limitations in "public" or "private" environments.)