Its a step in the right direction, but there is still a long, long, way to go before forcing one American to support the beliefs of another is stopped: Jun 21, 10:57 AM EDT Court: Union must give fee increase notice By JESSE J. HOLLAND Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled 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. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed with the judgment but wrote their own opinion. "When a public-sector union imposes a special assessment intended to fund solely political lobbying efforts, the First Amendment requires that the union provide non-members an opportunity to opt out of the contribution of funds," Sotomayor wrote. But Sotomayor and Ginsburg said they did not join in the majority opinion that the First Amendment requires an opt-in system for other circumstances like "the levying of a special assessment or dues increase." Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan dissented from the opinion. "If the union's basic administrative system does not violate the Constitution, then how could its special assessment have done so?" Breyer said. But Breyer said he agreed with Sotomayor on the court's decision to expand the decision beyond special political assessments. "No party has asked that we do so," he said. "The matter has not been fully argued in this court or in the courts below," said Breyer, who read his dissent aloud. Alito said there is "no merit" to Breyer's and Sotomayor's complaints. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-06-21-10-12-54
I love the phrase compulsory subsidies: Knox v SEIU will turn out to be one of the most important decisions ever handed down by the High Court. Not only because it took on the dictatorial power of public sector union officials, but because all compulsory subsidies is a freedom of religion issue. More importantly, the Knox v SEIU decision is a harbinger of things to come; i.e., the first step on the path to defining socialism as a religion as well as defining Islam as a political movement. A return to supporting the religion of your choice with your own money, or no religion at all, is nothing to be sneezed at either. Bottom line regarding Knox v SEIU If compulsory subsidies usurping the individual’s free speech is prohibited, it must follow that compulsory subsidies regarding religion is also prohibited since they are both First Amendment issues. Put it this way. Why protect free speech more than freedom of religion? Another Bad Day for SEIU By Ross Kaminsky on 6.21.12 @ 12:05PM It's been a rough road for public sector unions lately, particularly with their having spent millions of dollars in a losing effort to recall Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. A Supreme Court ruling released today in the case of Knox v Seiu is, if not another nail in the unions' coffin, at least a staple. In a 7-2 opinion in which Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg joined with the Court's five conservatives (their concurrence extending only to the ruling, but objecting to other aspects of the majority's decision), the Court ruled that the SEIU violated rights of non-members by requiring them to pay a special assessment which was used to fund political activities. The issue was slightly more technical than it sounds: The union had sent out an annual letter allowing non-members to opt out of the part of union dues which would be used for political activities. That letter said that such dues might change without notice. The union then imposed a special assessment to fight anti-union legislation in California, without sending another required Hudson letter offering non-members the right to opt out from the assessment. The Court ruled that that letter was required, and that a retroactive lowering of dues to those who would have objected was insufficient because their money would already have been used to express political opinions they object to, in violation of the First Amendment. The majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, notes that this sort of case is not about "balancing", as the often-overturned Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled. Rather, "Compulsory subsidies for private speech are...subject to exacting First Amendment scrutiny..." When the SEIU loses two of Court's most liberal members, they must know that their recent string of richly-deserved bad fortune has not come to an end. http://spectator.org/blog/2012/06/21/another-bad-day-for-seiu
Heres a bit more clarification for anyone looking to understand the full importance of Knox v SEIU: June 25, 2012 SCOTUS Derails the Democrats' SEIU Gravy Train By Edward H. Stewart, Jr. Some days, things just work out right. Last Thursday was one of those days for conservatives. It was a day of reckoning for the Service Employees International Union and the Democratic politicians they use our tax dollars to buy and pay for. And it was a day the United States Supreme Court stood strong for our First Amendment rights. Justice Alito's majority opinion in Knox v. SEIU met the uncompromising standard set by Citizens United and Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn. It not only reasserted the constitutional protection of free speech against union power, but also held that the process by which protection against compelled speech is afforded must not itself become a burden. A little background is in order. Under California's agency shop law, public employees are not required to join a union to keep their jobs; however, non-members are assessed a percentage of the union's regular dues as a condition of employment. The rationale is that since non-members enjoy the benefits of collective bargaining, they should bear their fair share of its costs. To protect non-members' First Amendment rights, they are required to pay for only the percentage of total dues that covers those costs, not for the union's "political or ideological projects" In 2005, the California SEIU's political power was seriously threatened by two ballot initiatives. Proposition 75 called for the union to obtain "affirmative consent" before imposing special assessments for political purposes. That was meant to prevent union abuses, since under such an "opt-in" rule, no money can be taken without the express consent of the employee. There would be no more "opt-out" chicanery such as "We'll take your money unless you tell us not to within thirty days," or a demand that the employee fill out some mind-boggling form to avoid being assessed. Proposition 76 posed a different threat: it gave the governor power to cut spending by reducing public employee compensation. To fund its $10-million political battle against these ballot propositions, the SEIU issued a special assessment demanding that all employees -- including non-members -- pony up the extra cash. Unfortunately for the SEIU, not all non-members were obedient sheep. Some not only complained; some workers took the union to court. And they won. The District Court issued a summary judgment in their favor based on the stark reality that there was only one purpose for the union's extraordinary spending, and that purpose was political. That might seem like a no-brainer; but right on cue, the high priests of social justice over at the Ninth Circuit reversed on appeal. And then something really interesting happened: the employees petitioned the Supreme Court, the Court agreed to hear the case, and...the SEIU tried to dodge the constitutional bullet by refunding the assessment and claiming that since nobody was out a dime, the case was moot. Close, but no cigar. Alito wryly observed that "uch postcertiorari maneuvers designed to insulate a decision from review by this Court must be viewed with a critical eye" because "a dismissal for mootness would permit a resumption of the challenged conduct as soon as the case is dismissed" What happened instead was a well-deserved disaster for public employee unions and the Democratic Party they brag they own. Predictably, Alito's opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy, held that the SEIU had violated non-members' First Amendment rights by forcing them to fund its political operations against their will. That's bad for the SEIU, and it's bad for the Democrats, because it threatens the political alchemy lab where they turn tax dollars into public employee salaries, salaries into union dues, and union dues into lavish spending on Democratic campaigns. But it gets worse. Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg broke ranks with the progressives, supporting the majority decision in a concurrence by Sotomayor. Only Justices Breyer and Kagan toed the party line. In 2005, the California SEIU's political power was seriously threatened by two ballot initiatives. But there was far worse news still to come for the public employee unions and the Democratic Party. The SEIU's brazen abuse of the "opt-out" system raised a question quite similar to the one posed by their attempt to moot the case by returning non-members' money: Once it is recognized, as our cases have done, that a non-member cannot be forced to fund a union's political or ideological activities, what is the justification for putting the burden on the non-member to opt out of making such a payment? This is not simply a matter of inconveniencing non-members. An opt-out system creates a risk that the fees paid by nonmembers will be used to further political and ideological ends with which they do not agree. The majority has now ventured where progressives refuse to tread. It is not enough to give lip service to First Amendment rights; the processes by which those rights are protected must be adequate to the task. There's really nothing new about this. The opinion Alito quotes to support his argument, Teachers v. Hudson, was decided a quarter of a century ago (475 U. S. 292 [1986]). [A] "union should not be permitted to exact a service fee from nonmembers without first establishing a procedure which will avoid the risk that their funds will be used, even temporarily, to finance ideological activities unrelated to collective bargaining." Make no mistake. Thursday was a very bad day for the public employee unions and the Democratic Party. How ironic that the SEIU's victory in its war against Proposition 75 has led to defeat not only in California, but in the entire United States. And how appropriate that the SEIU's bad faith has become the poster child for the "opt-in" system of non-member exemptions. Mr. Stewart is a freelance writer living in Texas. His book Deconstructing Progressive Establishment Clause Dogma is a work in progress. He can be reached at edward.stewart27@yahoo.com. http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...s_derails_the_democrats_seiu_gravy_train.html
