Major Supreme Court decision 7-2 against the Union SEIU

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 21, 2012 2:26 PM GMT
    Union cannot raise dues for political purposes without first giving notice and getting approval from members.

    Significant given the margin.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/21/supreme-court-rules-against-seiu-in-dispute-over-union-fee-hike/?test=latestnews

    Associated Press

    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.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 21, 2012 2:47 PM GMT
    That makes sense and is fair, until you added the link and what you are really fapping to.

    "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." which means an increase for any reason, not just political donations.


    ...and SB I highly doubt that bothers Obama as much as organized labour bothers you (even though you're in a union and benefit directly from it) icon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 21, 2012 5:23 PM GMT
    It would be great if we could stop pretending that the Roberts' Court anything else but a political arm of the Republican Party.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 21, 2012 5:26 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidobama-angry.jpg

    Unions must be upset. They already purchased the Democratic (I.e. Democrat) Party, but the Supreme Court is not for sale. Hurt feelings laughable with 7-2 vote. icon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 21, 2012 5:33 PM GMT
    I love how you came back and added a link, and in that link there is evidence that you are once again, spinning truths.

    I take back my earlier comment because this is already in place about political purpose increases.

    " 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."



    Really what this is about is Socal hating the idea that unions exist in public service and that they can increase dues, or collect them at all.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 21, 2012 6:52 PM GMT
    meninlove said

    Really what this is about is Socal hating the idea that unions exist in public service and that they can increase dues, or collect them at all.



    That's what the ruling is about as well.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 21, 2012 8:01 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    meninlove said

    Really what this is about is Socal hating the idea that unions exist in public service and that they can increase dues, or collect them at all.



    That's what the ruling is about as well.


    I know, but initially he positioned this topic, without a link as merely,
    "Union cannot raise dues for political purposes without first giving notice and getting approval from members. "

    ...and on that I agreed with him.
    Foolish of me.
    Imagine my surprise when getting the link and reading what it was really all about.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 21, 2012 8:25 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    Christian73 said
    meninlove said

    Really what this is about is Socal hating the idea that unions exist in public service and that they can increase dues, or collect them at all.



    That's what the ruling is about as well.


    I know, but initially he positioned this topic, without a link as merely,
    "Union cannot raise dues for political purposes without first giving notice and getting approval from members. "

    ...and on that I agreed with him.
    Foolish of me.
    Imagine my surprise when getting the link and reading what it was really all about.


    I haven't dove into this ruling but from what Sotomayor is quoted as saying I can't find fault. Of course, the spin is ridiculous but what do you expect from someone who believes the conspiracy theories of former car thief/insurance defrauder Darryl Issa.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 21, 2012 8:29 PM GMT
    meninlove said I love how you came back and added a link, and in that link there is evidence that you are once again, spinning truths.

    Nonsense. When I first heard the report on a TV newscast from a reporter posted at the Supreme Court, I thought it worth reporting in the news area. The information was so new that I couldn't find anything on a website. So I posted a brief line without any link or other story.

    Later when I saw a link, although on Fox News site, it originated from the Associated Press. Because the information from AP was fact not opinion, I decided to add the link and brief story to the OP rather than create another reply. I did not see adding the link or story as materially changing the OP in any way but providing more clarification.

    However, I noticed that there was more material added to the link. When I accessed it before, it had only the text that I included.

    For you to allege nefarious motives to that is consistent with the conspiracy theorists that abound on the left on this site. You becoming more like the chief conspirator advocate. Maybe you need an honorary military rank.
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Jun 22, 2012 12:17 AM GMT
    socalfitness saidUnion cannot raise dues for political purposes without first giving notice and getting approval from members.

    Significant given the margin.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/21/supreme-court-rules-against-seiu-in-dispute-over-union-fee-hike/?test=latestnews

    Associated Press

    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.


    Who cast the opposing votes? Sotomayor and Kagan?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 12:22 AM GMT
    conservativejock said
    socalfitness saidUnion cannot raise dues for political purposes without first giving notice and getting approval from members.

    Significant given the margin.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/21/supreme-court-rules-against-seiu-in-dispute-over-union-fee-hike/?test=latestnews

    Associated Press

    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.


    Who cast the opposing votes? Sotomayor and Kagan?

    Breuer and Kagan. It is in the link. There was more added to the story after I added the link and text to the OP.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 12:23 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    conservativejock said
    socalfitness saidUnion cannot raise dues for political purposes without first giving notice and getting approval from members.

    Significant given the margin.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/21/supreme-court-rules-against-seiu-in-dispute-over-union-fee-hike/?test=latestnews

    Associated Press

    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.


    Who cast the opposing votes? Sotomayor and Kagan?

    Breuer and Kagan. It is in the link. There was more added to the story after I added the link and text to the OP.


    That's irony for you - especially that Sotomayor went with the majority. Of course I think the real problem is that unions aren't subject to anti-trust laws and the real problem is that public sector unions exist.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 1:32 PM GMT

    "For you to allege nefarious motives to that is consistent with the conspiracy theorists that abound on the left on this site."

    Oh bulltweed, lol! You could have done this:

    2nd post:
    Couldn't find a link earlier- here it is.



    How hard was that?

    As for my reaction, considering SB's topic manipulation in the past, which earned him the nickname Mr Liar from me for awhile, I'm surprised you're so piqued. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2012 1:38 PM GMT
    Christian said, "I haven't dove into this ruling but from what Sotomayor is quoted as saying I can't find fault."

    Nor do I.

    Oh wait, there's riddler with his no unions in public service. icon_lol.gificon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2012 2:40 AM GMT
    So basically unions wanted to force non-union members to pay for their political activities? How is this even remotely defensible? And now that they have been ruled against they claim that this opens the door to big business?

    More here:
    http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/22/major-union-feels-sting-of-scotus-decision/

    Union delegates and officers who spoke with The Daily Caller at the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) 40th International Convention in Los Angeles acknowledged that the ruling could greatly diminish their ability to finance political activism. The case, which was initiated by eight California civil servants, affects roughly 36,000 state government employees, according to court documents.

    AFSCME encompasses 3,500 local unions representing 1.4 million members who work in public service and health care.

    California Local 1000, the union chapter named in Thursday’s Supreme Court decision, had offered to refund all the fees it previously collected and filed a motion to dismiss the case. But the workers insisted in a separate brief that the case go forward. The Supreme Court previously ruled in Communication Workers v. Beck that employees couldn’t be coerced into making political donations.

    “By barring unions from taking dues out of paychecks for political activities, the Supreme Court has opened the door to big business,” Danny Donohue, president of the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA)/AFSCME Local 1000 in New York, told the Daily Caller. “By ruling in favor of big business the Supreme Court is ruling against the principles this country was founded on.”
    Donohue is running for president of AFSCME against current Secretary-Treasurer Lee Saunders. The election results are expected later today.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2012 3:12 AM GMT
    I love when Riddler cites a Daily Caller article to justify a Fox News article posted by Socal that others have pointed out is spin.

    It just shows how completely wrapped in the Republican echo chamber bubble they all really are. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2012 3:26 AM GMT
    meninlove said
    "For you to allege nefarious motives to that is consistent with the conspiracy theorists that abound on the left on this site."

    Oh bulltweed, lol! You could have done this:

    2nd post:
    Couldn't find a link earlier- here it is.



    How hard was that?

    As for my reaction, considering SB's topic manipulation in the past, which earned him the nickname Mr Liar from me for awhile, I'm surprised you're so piqued. icon_lol.gif

    I could have added another post with the link. Would not have been a big deal. I didn't think it a big deal to add the link to the OP which only added some clarification. For that to upset you shows you are easily upset. Too bad.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2012 5:53 AM GMT
    Lol - here's the spin from ThinkProgress:

    http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/06/21/503976/latest-supreme-court-decision-another-conservative-attack-on-unions/

    A Supreme Court’s ruling today, in the Knox v. SEIU case, makes it much harder for unions to carry out their activities, leaving workers in an even more tenuous position in the wake of Citizens United.

    California law allows SEIU Local 1000 to represent nonunion members in contract negotiations, along with union workers. In exchange, the local collects dues from nonmembers but exempts them from paying for nonchargeable, or political, expenses and activities — around 44% of the budget. Midway through the 2006 election cycle, the union temporarily increased its monthly dues in order to create an “Emergency Temporary Assessment to Build a Political Fight-Back Fund” to fight against several propositions placed on the ballot. While non-union members were expected to pay only 56% of the increase, a non-union member sued, arguing that he and others should not have to pay any of the temporary assessment at all, including chargeable expenses.

    The 7-2 decision held that the union was wrong to impose the increase on the non-member workers, as the non-members should have had the opportunity to opt out of any contribution intended to fund political lobbying efforts.


    Back in the real world, where people don't think that it's ok to force others to pay for your political preferences - and further, it leads to the possibility that the courts will allow union members to opt out of paying for political lobbying should they disagree -

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-unions-20120622,0,4893502.story

    "This aggressive use of power by the SEIU to collect fees from nonmembers is indefensible," said JusticeSamuel A. Alito Jr., speaking for the court's conservative majority. "When a public-sector union imposes a special assessment or dues increase, the union … may not exact any funds from nonmembers without their affirmative consent."

    The court fight carried echoes of the recent battles in Wisconsin, Ohio and other states where Republican governors sought to limit the power of public-sector unions, and the two dissenters Thursday made reference to those tensions.

    "The debate about public unions' collective bargaining rights is currently intense," JusticeStephen G. Breyersaid in a dissent. "There is no good reason for this court suddenly to enter the debate, much less now to decide that the Constitution resolves it."

    The Alito opinion resolved only a narrow issue. Its rule applies to "special assessments" during the year, not annual dues. Only a small amount of money was involved, and the union agreed to refund it. Some of the Sacramento-area employees who objected paid an extra $6.45 per month in 2005.

    But the anti-union tone of the opinion suggested the justices would be willing to make it harder for teacher unions and other public-sector unions to collect fees from employees who disagree with the political leanings of their unions.

    In California and most states that bargain with public-sector unions, dissident employees must affirmatively opt out if they do not want their share of the fees to pay for politics. Alito said the right rule might require unions to get an affirmative "opt in" from employees before they can collect full fees.