Another good ruling: scotus rules against SEIU

[PokerGuy]

Court seems to be on a roll with good rulings. This time the court ruled against unions putting the burden on non-union members to "opt out" when they don't want to contribute to the unions political activities. Instead, the court ruled, non-union members can "opt in" to paying toward political activities.

Agency fees (the fees to pay for collective bargaining) are not affected, the union can still collect those.

Only the idiot Kagan and Breyer dissented, I'm somewhat surprised Sotomayor and Ginsburg were on the right side of this one.

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_n...als-another-blow-to-public-sector-unions?lite

 

[CPA]

Awesome news!

 

[actuarial]

In general I'm a supporter of unions, but this is the right decision.

 

[sunzt]

I'm somewhat surprised Sotomayor and Ginsburg were on the right side of this one.

Were they supposed to default towards union support because they were left leaning, or even worse nominated by Obama?

 

[jhu]

Only the idiot Kagan and Breyer dissented, I'm somewhat surprised Sotomayor and Ginsburg were on the right side of this one.

So, since you don't agree with them, they're idiots?

 

[Atreus21]

So, since you don't agree with them, they're idiots?

Well yeah dude. It's politics.

 

[boomerang]

Hoping for three for three here.

 

[jhu]

Were they supposed to default towards union support because they were left leaning, or even worse nominated by Obama?

No kidding. Sandra Day O'Connor was appointed by Reagan. Is she an idiot? John Paul Stevens was appointed by Ford. Is he an idiot?

 

[sactoking]

So, since you don't agree with them, they're idiots?

Huh, I read that as him calling Kagan an idiot and saying Breyer also dissented.

Maybe he just doesn't like Kagan.

 

[PokerGuy]

Were they supposed to default towards union support because they were left leaning, or even worse nominated by Obama?

Yes, that's generally how it seems to work nowadays.

 

[PokerGuy]

So, since you don't agree with them, they're idiots?

No, they're idiots because they're idiots, irrespective of whether I agree with them or not. Actually, one is an idiot, the other is mostly an idiot.

 

[PokerGuy]

Huh, I read that as him calling Kagan an idiot and saying Breyer also dissented.

Maybe he just doesn't like Kagan.

Correct!

 

[werepossum]

By SCOTUS levels Kagan is an idiot; she's Obama's Harriet Myers. Breyer by contrast seems extremely intelligent and thoughtful, but he's also very, very progressive and seems to believe his job is not to determine the law and its Constitutionality, but rather what the law should be.

 

[PokerGuy]

By SCOTUS levels Kagan is an idiot; she's Obama's Harriet Myers. Breyer by contrast seems extremely intelligent and thoughtful, but he's also very, very progressive and seems to believe his job is not to determine the law and its Constitutionality, but rather what the law should be.

Thanks for putting that into words much better than I could. Agree 100%.

 

[spidey07]

This is good news, but it looks like it only applies to public sector unions and not all the other unions? But you can guarantee the union will strong arm it's members to opt-in via shame and intimidation tactics.

 

[PokerGuy]

This is good news, but it looks like it only applies to public sector unions and not all the other unions? But you can guarantee the union will strong arm it's members to opt-in via shame and intimidation tactics.

I don't think the ruling was specific to public sector unions, it was specific to non-union members working in places where there are unions. As a result of this, non-union members would have to "opt in" to paying for political activities of the union, rather than having to opt out every year or whatever.

 

[Incorruptible]

This is good news, time to take down the public sector unions

 

[boomerang]

This is good news, but it looks like it only applies to public sector unions and not all the other unions? But you can guarantee the union will strong arm it's members to opt-in via shame and intimidation tactics.

As a a former union member, shame - no. Intimidation - in spades. I could tell several stories in more detail. About being cornered by a couple of my union "brothers" in a remote spot and threatened. About being held in a job for well over a year because the Shop Chairman wouldn't let me go back to my previous position. A move that was made by numerous others before me BTW. And my personal favorite although it didn't happen to me, the loser in an election that lost by more votes than there were members in that district, who when he asked the Shop Chairman how that could have occurred, was threatened that his car would be torched and if that didn't work his home would be set on fire if he didn't know to keep his mouth shut.

Anyone who opts out of paying PAC money, had better think it through long and hard. The gloves will come off.

 

[trenchfoot]

In general I'm a supporter of unions, but this is the right decision.

I was for many years a union business agent and I too agree this is a proper decision. Freedom of choice is a good thing.

 

[bfdd]

this was a good move.

 

[Lithium381]

good to see the courts using logic and reasoning! i support this!

 

[DCal430]

Actually the real ruling isn't that political contributions have to be opt in and not opt-ut, but that the union has to allow people to opt-out. The union has a special assestment for political things in 2005 and 2006 above their normal political assesment and they refuse to allow anyone to opt out.

 

[Double Trouble]

Actually the real ruling isn't that political contributions have to be opt in and not opt-ut, but that the union has to allow people to opt-out. The union has a special assestment for political things in 2005 and 2006 above their normal political assesment and they refuse to allow anyone to opt out.

That's not how I'm reading the ruling. It looks to me like the part that's really going to sting is that non union employees in a union shop would have to "opt in" to paying for political stuff, something that's not all that likely. Remember, these are the people who choose not to be a part of the union to begin with, so they're not likely to be big political union supporters.

 

[trenchfoot]

That's not how I'm reading the ruling. It looks to me like the part that's really going to sting is that non union employees in a union shop would have to "opt in" to paying for political stuff, something that's not all that likely. Remember, these are the people who choose not to be a part of the union to begin with, so they're not likely to be big political union supporters.

If so, then better still. A union is not going to foster good relations with employees who might be leaning toward joining the union if they're "forced" to pay into a fund they don't approve of. They should be allowed to have the advantage of opting in rather than out, which of course is to the unions disadvantage, but in my mind, the right thing to do.

At the union I represented, even union members themselves had the ability to opt in, rather than being in by default. After all, there are many union members that don't want to be in the union they were required to join upon being employed, for reasons that range from their perceived disadvantages of the seniority system, to having to be "forced" to join a union at all to work at said closed shop.

Granted, unions are around because there is a need for them, otherwise they would cease to exist. I've been associated with many companies operating under the same union banner, and as a whole, the employees are much better off benefits and wages-wise than if they chose not to join.

That being said, in open shops where joining a union is optional, it's been my experience that closed shops having similar jobs manage to negotiate better wage/benefits packages for themselves, for one obvious reason: tighter unity. And for most of those open shops that I have been able to monitor, the unions have far less influence and power and basically noone is happy with the arrangement. This mostly due to the non-union, non-dues paying members having access to all the watered down benefits the union provides and none of the risk that going on strike present, with the dues paying employees in the union being apathetic toward their union for its ineffectiveness in representing their concerns. AND, most importantly, having management being able to exploit the two sides in ways that encourage all employees to fight among themselves and not with management.