Another Big Setback for Public Sector Unions
Today, the Supreme Court ruled that public sector unions have to get "affirmative consent" from non-members if they want to charge them for things like political spending. The case involves the corrupt practice in which public sector unions charge n0nunion employees fees to support political activities, unless the employee "opts out" of the fee. Thus, state employees are compelled to subsidize union speech unless they take action to opt out. This arrangement violates long-standing precedent against compelled speech.
Today's decision in Knox v. Service Employees International Union (SEIU) requires an "opt-in" approach for certain types of union assessments. I explain more about the background and impact of this case over at the Manhattan Institute's excellent Point of Law blog.
- Comment (8)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments:
Apr '12
Re: Another Big Setback for Public Sector Unions
I'm wondering now if those unions must repay all the years of back dues they've been collecting. Some lawyer (oy!) outta look into it.
Dec '10
Re: Another Big Setback for Public Sector Unions
My reading is that regular dues are still opt out but special assessments and increases now require an opt in. It also looks like the stage is set to challenge opt out for regular dues.
May '10
Re: Another Big Setback for Public Sector Unions
The key now is to get a whole bunch of cost accountants, to keep the unions from lying about the administration/politics ratio.
KP- I understand the basic inference you cite because of the unique nature of the particular case fact pattern, but I have a hard time believing that the overall message about the distinction between opting in and opting out isn't pretty clear. I suspect that any future cases will clarify that point towards a single consistent rule.
Jun '10
Re: Another Big Setback for Public Sector Unions
Hasn't been a good month for public sector unions.
Aug '10
Re: Another Big Setback for Public Sector Unions
The beauty part is that Richard Trumka - the crypto-Marxist head of SEIU - has suffered another big setback. He and SEIU spent many millions and countless man/woman-hours in Wisconsin, which they said was critical for them.
He's been teaming up with Francis Fox Piven, the proud Marxist enemy of all individual freedom, and they've lost huge:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2698641/posts
Feb '11
Re: Another Big Setback for Public Sector Unions
I predict the SEIU will manage to ignore this decision, one way or another.
I recall that the decision Communications Workers of America v. Beck supposedly required unions to obtain permission before spending dues money on political campaigns but I know from personal experience it was not enforced.
Nov '10
Re: Another Big Setback for Public Sector Unions
Even more than this ruling, I liked the alternative assenting opinion by (yes, believe it or not) Sotomayor and Ginsburg. The lefties were sleeping on the job and ended up opining something very helpful when they brought up the first Amendment rights of non-union workers. Remember that alternative opinions and even dissenting opinions by supreme court members often are cited on matters of principle and reasoning in future rulings. Suppose a group of non-union workers in a union shop in the near future sought a SC ruling on whether they could require 30% of their dues to be withheld on the basis that the union devotes 30% of its resources to political activity? Would this opinion not affect the outcome? I'd like some legal beagles here to opine on that.
Further, look at the dissenting view, which ties the A: the constitutionality of "the union's basic administrative system" to B: that of the assessment. A implies B.
Now ... wait a minute! Consider the contrapositive: If the special assessment violates constitutional rights, then so must the "union's basic administrative system." not-B implies not-A
But ... the court just ruled not-B. So not-A follows!
Edited on June 22, 2012 at 6:30amRe: Another Big Setback for Public Sector Unions
R. Craigen: Suppose a group of non-union workers in a union shop in the near future sought a SC ruling on whether they could require 30% of their dues to be withheld on the basis that the union devotes 30% of its resources to political activity? Would this opinion not affect the outcome? I'd like some legal beagles here to opine on that.
Edited 9 hours ago
I think it's clear that Alito would have preferred to demand an "opt-in" system for all assessments on nonunion workers, but, alas, the regular annual assessment was not at issue. However, Alito's opinion nicely sets the stage for a later challenge. And Breyer's dissent is helpful too, since Breyer points out that the majority's rationale applies equally to the annual dues assessment.
I'd be shocked if we don't see a flurry of lawsuits challenging the "opt-out" mechanism as it applies to annual dues assessed against nonunion workers in "agency shop" states.