Breaking: Supreme Court Rules Against SEIU And All Unions
Posted by Andrea Ryan on Thursday, June 21, 2012, 9:53 AM
The SEIU mob won’t like this one bit.
It’s a great day for freedom. While the Supreme Court has postponed announcing their ruling on ObamaCare and Arizona Immigration, they did issue a decision in the Knox v. SEIU case. A strong 7-2 vote ruled, not only against the SEIU, but against all labor unions.
FoxNews reports,
The Supreme Court says a union must give nonmembers an immediate chance to object to unexpected fee increases that all workers are required to pay in closed-shop situations.
The court on Thursday 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. 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.
Update: Forbes has more on the ramifications of today’s ruling. The court ruled that employees made can’t be forced to effectively lend money to the union for political activities they disagree with. Wow!
… The Court, in a 48-page opinon by Justice Samuel Alito, held that employees can be required to pay dues in exchange for the benefits they get from collective bargaining, but can’t be forced to effectively lend money to the union for political activities they disagree with. It was a blow to the Service Employees International Union, which first tried to make the case moot by offering refunds, and then argued it would be too difficult to get the assent of non-members before launching a campaign to defeat legislation it considered a threat to its existence. …
The decision, coming a short time after Gov. Scott Walker survived a union-led recall campaign in Wisconsin, further undermines the power of public-sector unions to compel employees to pay for their operations.The Supreme Court has uneasily upheld laws that require all employees to pay the equivalent of union dues to cover the costs of collective bargaining and other benefits they receive, under the theory it helps maintain “labor peace” by discouraging free-riders. Alito, in this decision, called that policy an “anomaly” given the strong First Amendment right against compelled speech or membership in any organization.
Unions are supposed to separate out political expenses and give non-members a so-called “Hudson notice” explaining the split and giving them the opportunity to pay only the non-political share of expenses. In this case, SEIU passed a special assessment after the Hudson notice, charging employees a 25% dues increase for an emergency “Fight-Back Fund” to defeat Proposition 75, which would have limited public-sector union rights.
Several non-members sued, saying they were being compelled to give the union money for a political cause they disagreed with. The union offered to refund non-members the previous year’s percentage rate of political spending but they rejected that, saying the fund was clearly all for political purposes.
The court, in its decision, said it was unfair to require non-members to file lawsuits or take other action to avoid paying for speech they disagree with. There’s no balancing of the “right” of unions to collect dues against employees’ First Amendment rights, the court said, since unions have “no constitutional entitlement to the fees of nonmember-employees.”
Worse, in this case, Prop. 75 would have bolstered non-member rights by requiring their consent in future political spending. Thus the effect of the procedure was to force non-members “to subsidize a political effort designed to restrict their own rights.”
ADVERTISEMENT
`
Granny commented:
Now all California needs to do is get rid of the requirement that employees join unions in the first place in order to work.
Hardnox commented:
Well, that is indeed good news….finally. I hope that this decision is a bellwether of things to come.
Atlanta Media Guy commented:
Granny I agree, but is there anyway we can rid ourselves of the 9th Circus Court… just askin’
Granny commented:
#3 June 21, 2012 at 10:03 am
Atlanta Media Guy commented:
Granny I agree, but is there anyway we can rid ourselves of the 9th Circus Court… just askin’
______
California – the whole Left Coast really – is so different from all the rest of us they might as well be a different country.
Blackbird commented:
Even Ginsburg ruled against SEIU. Could you imagine what will happen if she rules against Obamacare? It would be like one of the signs of the Apocalypse or something.
As a side note I do hope Ginsburg and the rest have very, very good security. The only thing Unions hate worse than conservatives are liberals that buck their wishes, and things tend to burn and people tend to die when that happens. I don’t even want to think of how attractive it would be to the left to “force” a few Obama Supreme Court appointments before November.
retire05 commented:
As if the unions will honor the SCOTUS ruling. Hell, they have been violating CWA vs. Beck for decades, and not one D.C. politican has the cajones to go after the unions for that. I even sent my union letters to my Congressman every month showing that they were using member dues to print their newletters that contained support of Democrats running in Texas, a right to work state. Nada.
Sam Stone commented:
Another over ruling of the 9th Circus Court! THE MOST over turned court in the land.
Sam Stone commented:
I predict Sotomayor will rule the :individual mandate” is unconstitutional!
coolidgerules commented:
One down, two to go. If all three go this way, how does the MSM cover any of this? The reaction from the administration is going to be a desparate one.
They have to assume power again-there are too many scandals and usurpations going on within the agencies that are needed to be kept from public view. Get ready to be completely sickened when all this sees the light of day-it’s worse than any of us think at this point. It’s only June and Bolshevik Barry has four more months of damage to do and he has the Democrat Convention to contend with. Something tells me he is going to be all in creating hell on earth for the people of this country.
Bill Mitchell commented:
Question: Does anything the uber-liberal 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ever get held up by the Supreme Court?
valerie commented:
I’ve been living in the San Diego area for about three years, now. There really is very little wrong with the state, and the state legislature can fix it, should they choose to do so. California needs
1) a right-to-work law. California unions pay for the elections.
2) chose rules that give them a less volatile income stream. In the past, they have used a “soak the rich” policy, which means they are relying on the income of restaurants and construction companies. ALL the state employees, down to the level of local principals and teachers, spend an inordinate amount of time every six months or so wrangling over the budget. For example, the course offerings in the local high schools are not settled until six weeks into the school year.
California voters are liberal, generous, and very poorly informed. They get their news from NPR, that is radio, in the car, and government-sponsored. Their newspapers have utterly failed to inform them.
For example, the LA Times patted itself on the back for breaking the news about a small community, Bell city, whose officials had granted themselves enormous salaries over the years. This was a story that took nearly twenty years to develop. Their actions were public, but there was nobody around to report. Once the Times started reporting, then every investigatory body in the state got interested.
In my opinion, that scandal, and its costs, would never have happened, had the newspaper done its job in the first place.
Patty commented:
#7 June 21, 2012 at 10:16 am
Sam Stone commented:
Another over ruling of the 9th Circus Court! THE MOST over turned court in the land.
————–
Great point.
democraps suck commented:
they should have gone one step further and made all unions ILLEGAL
Patty commented:
Low flow toilets are mandated to save water. Ha!!! After I just got finished with our Toto toilet and 45 minutes of plungering my guts out, our cats were snorkeling in the living room!!! Not much water saving there! [..]
My old 1960′s toilet I flushed once. Maybe twice on rare occasions. This Toto Total Piece of Crap Toilet I flush four times during a library moment! How the F%#&$ is THAT saving water????
This is why we need less government. About 99% less. A man can’t even go the bathroom without some freaking government regulations ruining the evening. Just another example of bureaucrats, government and politicians taking away our personal freedom.
As for me, I am in search of a method to reverse the low flow feature. I think I can do it. But if any freedom loving patriots out there has accomplished this, please pass on the plans.
That’s it. I can almost see now.
http://www.somebloggingguy.com/?p=1388
________________
Why am I posting this, because this just happen to us and no once but many times.
Government can do the right thing and SCOTUS did here, they just flushed SEIU down the drain and the little Union turds.
PJ commented:
I sued the union 20 years ago over mandatory dues and won. 80% of the dues go to political campaigns, always Dems except for a couple incumbent Repubs, and the court said we were not obligated to donate to campaigns.
That’s why the dues are increased: the Dems need the money.
Yeah Texas commented:
Re #9. You are almost right. Obama has 4 months until the election & then 2 months for executive orders etc of a lame duck president. I dread the havoc he will create
GregInSeattle commented:
To Quote the Beatles: “It’s getting better all the time!”
`