SCOTUS ruling against SEIU [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : SCOTUS ruling against SEIU


sbhaven
06-21-2012, 10:21
SCOTUS ruling today, 7-2, on union due's and the opt out option for non union members...
KNOX ET AL. v. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 1000 (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1121c4d6.pdf)
Background...
California law permits public-sector employees in a bargaining unit to decide by majority vote to create an “agency shop” arrangement under which all the employees are represented by a union. Even employees who do not join the union must pay an annual fee for “chargeable expenses,” i.e., the cost of nonpolitical union services related to collective bargaining. Under Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U. S. 209, a public-sector union can bill nonmembers for chargeable expenses but may not require them to fund its political or ideological projects. Teachers v. Hudson, 475 U. S. 292, 302–311, sets out requirements that a union must meet in order to collect regular fees from nonmembers without violating their rights.
More at the link including the reversed and remanded case and opinion...

CAcop
06-21-2012, 10:50
Sounds like the status quo. We had some our guys leave our POA only to come back when management saw them as weeklings to be culled from the herd. I don't think we collected any dues from them other than LDF money.

Jerry
06-21-2012, 11:04
It should be, you either belong or you don't. Your choice! You belong you pay all fess necessary. You don't belong you don't pay anything and you get no union "protection"/benefits. If the union bargains and member befits increase the "company" may or may not grant non union members the same benefits. Companies choice. But then that would be fair and balanced so why would I even think it would work? :upeyes:

wjv
06-21-2012, 12:07
Why should the unions have the right to demand money from people, that will be used EXPRESSLY for political purposes?

So if you belong to union X, you are forced to pay extra assessments to support candidates that you don't like?

Fed Five Oh
06-21-2012, 12:53
Looks like it was 6-3.

sbhaven
06-21-2012, 14:37
Looks like it was 6-3.
Nope, 7-2. From the opinion PDF link above...
ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, and THOMAS, JJ., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which GINSBURG, J., joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which KAGAN, J., joined.
From Scotusblog (http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/details-on-todays-opinions-21/#more-147148)...
Justice Alito announced the second opinion of the day, in Knox v. Service Employees International Union. By a vote of seven to two, the Court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case for further consideration. It held that the case is not moot; five members of the Court further held that the First Amendment does not allow a public-sector union to require objecting non-members to pay a special fee for the purposes of financing the union’s political and ideological activities. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Ginsburg joined. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Kagan.

Fed Five Oh
06-21-2012, 18:10
Nope, 7-2. From the opinion PDF link above...

You are correct. I joined a joiner with the wrong joiner.

G29Reload
06-21-2012, 18:43
The real headline here is Sotomayor did the right thing! She voted against the union. Zero must be pissed.

Cavalry Doc
06-21-2012, 18:43
Why should the unions have the right to demand money from people, that will be used EXPRESSLY for political purposes?

So if you belong to union X, you are forced to pay extra assessments to support candidates that you don't like?

Even though I agree with some Union functions, I wholehardheartedly agree with Unions not getting involved with politics, and absolutely agree that people need to volunteer to be in a Union, it should not be mandatory. I also think there should be a separation, so that Unions can only use dues to work on local matters, and not on political matters. A lot of Union members are conservative, but the corrupt leadership is almost always DemocRAT.

An employee should have a right, but not a mandate to be in a Union. That should be (and is in many cases) voluntary.

An employee should know that their dues are not going to support ANY political candidate. The dues should not be sent to any higher level union organization.

A Union should concern themselves with the rights of their employees, not politicians.

Brucev
06-21-2012, 19:16
Even though I agree with some Union functions, I wholehardheartedly agree with Unions not getting involved with politics, and absolutely agree that people need to volunteer to be in a Union, it should not be mandatory. I also think there should be a separation, so that Unions can only use dues to work on local matters, and not on political matters. A lot of Union members are conservative, but the corrupt leadership is almost always DemocRAT.

An employee should have a right, but not a mandate to be in a Union. That should be (and is in many cases) voluntary.

An employee should know that their dues are not going to support ANY political candidate. The dues should not be sent to any higher level union organization.

A Union should concern themselves with the rights of their employees, not politicians.

So, if employees are not to act in concert politically then using the same rational it follows that corporations should not be permitted to act politically as stockholders are not uniformly of one political perspective, etc.??? Or are only employees acting collectively as a union to be precluded from acting politically???

Bruce H
06-21-2012, 20:07
So, if employees are not to act in concert politically then using the same rational it follows that corporations should not be permitted to act politically as stockholders are not uniformly of one political perspective, etc.??? Or are only employees acting collectively as a union to be precluded from acting politically???


Who ever decided that unions, corporations, or any organized group should be treated like a person for political reasons was an idiot. They should not be involved at any level.

sbhaven
06-21-2012, 20:32
So, if employees are not to act in concert politically then using the same rational it follows that corporations should not be permitted to act politically as stockholders are not uniformly of one political perspective, etc.??? Or are only employees acting collectively as a union to be precluded from acting politically???
I think the issue/problem/difference stems from the fact that the Union was collecting money from the employees regardless of if they were in the union or not. Where as stockholders and share holders voluntarily buy into the company.
Who ever decided that unions, corporations, or any organized group should be treated like a person for political reasons was an idiot. They should not be involved at any level.
That ruling has opened a can of worms.

The problem with some of the public unions however is the incestuous relationship they have with the elected government officials. The unions donate to the very people who are tasked to bargain with the union on union employee wages and benefits. As such there is a circle of money that goes from government coffers, to the unions employees, back to the union via union due's, then back to the government officials through (ETA: union) campaign donations and paid media advertising spots.

A similar cycle does happen in the private sector too with companies who lobby and then are granted tax breaks, tax cuts, eminent domain land grabs, or other benefits by those in government that they lobbied.

CAcop
06-21-2012, 23:07
I think the issue/problem/difference stems from the fact that the Union was collecting money from the employees regardless of if they were in the union or not. Where as stockholders and share holders voluntarily buy into the company.

That ruling has opened a can of worms.

The problem with some of the public unions however is the incestuous relationship they have with the elected government officials. The unions donate to the very people who are tasked to bargain with the union on union employee wages and benefits. As such there is a circle of money that goes from government coffers, to the unions employees, back to the union via union due's, then back to the government officials through (ETA: union) campaign donations and paid media advertising spots.

A similar cycle does happen in the private sector too with companies who lobby and then are granted tax breaks, tax cuts, eminent domain land grabs, or other benefits by those in government that they lobbied.

At least in the case of unions I think your fears may be ubfounded. I work for a city that is probably in the top 5, at least top 10, most liberal cities in this country. All the politcians in office here are Democrats. They take union money and support. The last time us employees did netionitations we gave up 18% of our pay where the city was going to imposr a contract on us that was going to be structured far worse. Us at the PD we are in an "association" with very little back up, unlike the other city workers with SEIU. Even the might SEIU can't stave off layoff of 10% of employees and 18% cuts on top of a 10% furlough.

I honestly don't think businesses are going to fare much better.

Let's be honest. Politicians are rainmaking us. "The Gods are not happy with that last rain dance. I need more money to do another dance." If people were smarter they would see it rains sooner or later without having to pay the rainmaker his money.

countrygun
06-21-2012, 23:29
At least in the case of unions I think your fears may be ubfounded. I work for a city that is probably in the top 5, at least top 10, most liberal cities in this country. All the politcians in office here are Democrats. They take union money and support. The last time us employees did netionitations we gave up 18% of our pay where the city was going to imposr a contract on us that was going to be structured far worse. Us at the PD we are in an "association" with very little back up, unlike the other city workers with SEIU. Even the might SEIU can't stave off layoff of 10% of employees and 18% cuts on top of a 10% furlough.

I honestly don't think businesses are going to fare much better.

Let's be honest. Politicians are rainmaking us. "The Gods are not happy with that last rain dance. I need more money to do another dance." If people were smarter they would see it rains sooner or later without having to pay the rainmaker his money.


His observations about the public employee unions are exactly what happened here and the back scratching went a couple of steps further as the State politicians discouraged private enterprise in my County and instead increased the number of social workers to help with the social problems from a high unemployment rate, and encouraged retiress to move inand utilize "care providers" who, like the social workers were absorbed into the SEIU, which was a prime political contributor.

Cavalry Doc
06-22-2012, 04:35
So, if employees are not to act in concert politically then using the same rational it follows that corporations should not be permitted to act politically as stockholders are not uniformly of one political perspective, etc.??? Or are only employees acting collectively as a union to be precluded from acting politically???

Anyone can set up a PAC. A Union should not automatically be one. The PAC fund should be separate and voluntary. No comingling if funds, separate personnel work that side of the house. Which is the way it is where I work. Union membership is voluntary, the union is required to represent non dues paying members, unless the matter reaches the level of a statutory appeal (EEO, OWCP, MSPB etc).

Cavalry Doc
06-22-2012, 04:37
The real headline here is Sotomayor did the right thing! She voted against the union. Zero must be pissed.

She's just in stealth mode. Let's see what she does with barrycare and the next RKBA case.

sbhaven
06-22-2012, 05:20
At least in the case of unions I think your fears may be ubfounded.
Unfounded or not the potential is there and money is a powerful motivator.

With the economy in the toilet. Many cities now have no choice but to cut back on city employees pay and benefits. For many cites (and states) the employee wage and benefits have become a growing expenditure that they can no longer afford. None of this means that in the past unions and the politicians were not in bed with each other.

While this article (http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Are-state-workers-overpaid-637431.php) about my state is a few years old, it shows that (back then) the average pay for state employee's were $14,000 higher than the average private sector wage. No state or city can support such a disparity indefinitely when the money to pay those city/state employees comes from the private sector. The federal government can support such a disparity between it's employees and the private secctor since it has the monetary printing presses to print unlimited funds from.

HexHead
06-22-2012, 05:31
So, if employees are not to act in concert politically then using the same rational it follows that corporations should not be permitted to act politically as stockholders are not uniformly of one political perspective, etc.??? Or are only employees acting collectively as a union to be precluded from acting politically???

Stockholders can sell their stock if they don't agree with the company's actions. I used to work for a company where all the employees fell under the union contract, whether they were members or not. Only members got to vote on the contract. I joined the union just so I could vote against a proposed contract, which failed. The only way out of the union was to either quit working for the company, or go into management.

CAcop
06-22-2012, 08:00
Unfounded or not the potential is there and money is a powerful motivator.

With the economy in the toilet. Many cities now have no choice but to cut back on city employees pay and benefits. For many cites (and states) the employee wage and benefits have become a growing expenditure that they can no longer afford. None of this means that in the past unions and the politicians were not in bed with each other.

While this article (http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Are-state-workers-overpaid-637431.php) about my state is a few years old, it shows that (back then) the average pay for state employee's were $14,000 higher than the average private sector wage. No state or city can support such a disparity indefinitely when the money to pay those city/state employees comes from the private sector. The federal government can support such a disparity between it's employees and the private secctor since it has the monetary printing presses to print unlimited funds from.

When I see stats like this I awlays wonder if they just do all jobs vs. all jobs or they actually compare similar jobs. Around here IT people get paid less than in the private sector but they get pensions and are slightly more resistant to outsourcing or layoff. (Hard to get "Sam" from India to hop a plane to fix the report writing system at 0300 vs. our in house guy) Teachers in private vs. public get paid less but they deal with better kids for the most part. Consider it combat pay. Nurses in the public sector get paid far less as a rule but they do get pensions in exchange, usually. Of course you can't compare cops to security guards. Around here it is very common for agencies to require 60 college units for police and security guard don't even need a GED.

I suspect that is why the studies always just lump workers as whole because there are some jobs that are not directly comparable.

Brucev
06-22-2012, 09:29
Stockholders can sell their stock if they don't agree with the company's actions. I used to work for a company where all the employees fell under the union contract, whether they were members or not. Only members got to vote on the contract. I joined the union just so I could vote against a proposed contract, which failed. The only way out of the union was to either quit working for the company, or go into management.

My experience with unions was in trucking and the shipyard. Like anything else, it was not uniformly bad or good. Employees/stockholders... they can choose to leave by selling out or walking away. Can't see that restriction political action by unions should not also apply exactly and equally to corporations. If it is grievous for stockholders/corporations to not be allowed to act/speak politically, then it is no less grievous for unionized employees to be denied the exact same right to act/speak politically.

Lethaltxn
06-22-2012, 09:53
My experience with unions was in trucking and the shipyard. Like anything else, it was not uniformly bad or good. Employees/stockholders... they can choose to leave by selling out or walking away. Can't see that restriction political action by unions should not also apply exactly and equally to corporations. If it is grievous for stockholders/corporations to not be allowed to act/speak politically, then it is no less grievous for unionized employees to be denied the exact same right to act/speak politically.

Because some of the union employees may not agree with the unions political agendas. Why should they participate?
You're equating the two as if they are completely equal.

Brucev
06-22-2012, 10:18
Because some of the union employees may not agree with the unions political agendas. Why should they participate?
You're equating the two as if they are completely equal.

There are many instances in which stockholders disagree with the political actions of the board/ceo of a company in which they own stock. There are doubtless instances in which union members disagree with the political actions of those who lead a particular union. Can't see any difference.

If artificial persons under the law are to be permitted political action, then that action must pertain to all artificial persons under the law. Of course, it is only natural that artificial persons such as corporations would want to exclude unions. They don't want to deal with such reality.

Lethaltxn
06-22-2012, 10:24
There are many instances in which stockholders disagree with the political actions of the board/ceo of a company in which they own stock. There are doubtless instances in which union members disagree with the political actions of those who lead a particular union. Can't see any difference.

If artificial persons under the law are to be permitted political action, then that action must pertain to all artificial persons under the law. Of course, it is only natural that artificial persons such as corporations would want to exclude unions. They don't want to deal with such reality.

I swear it's like talking to a wall.
If stockholders don't agree with a companies political affiliation then they can, that's right, sell the stock and get out.
Can you say the same for someone forced to pay union dues?
Someone shouldn't be forced to pay dues to an organization that is counter to their beliefs, just because someone says they have to.

Goaltender66
06-22-2012, 10:52
I swear it's like talking to a wall.

You can't reason someone out of a position he was never reasoned into. :)

Of course, you are correct in what you are saying. There's a difference between a stockholder who voluntarily makes an informed investment decision into a particular company and a union where fees are, for lack of a better term, extorted from the nonmembers.

Lethaltxn
06-22-2012, 10:56
You can't reason someone out of a position he was never reasoned into. :)

Of course, you are correct in what you are saying. There's a difference between a stockholder who voluntarily makes an informed investment decision into a particular company and a union where fees are, for lack of a better term, extorted from the nonmembers.

Very true.

Cavalry Doc
06-22-2012, 11:07
When I see stats like this I awlays wonder if they just do all jobs vs. all jobs or they actually compare similar jobs. Around here IT people get paid less than in the private sector but they get pensions and are slightly more resistant to outsourcing or layoff. (Hard to get "Sam" from India to hop a plane to fix the report writing system at 0300 vs. our in house guy) Teachers in private vs. public get paid less but they deal with better kids for the most part. Consider it combat pay. Nurses in the public sector get paid far less as a rule but they do get pensions in exchange, usually. Of course you can't compare cops to security guards. Around here it is very common for agencies to require 60 college units for police and security guard don't even need a GED.

I suspect that is why the studies always just lump workers as whole because there are some jobs that are not directly comparable.

From what I've seen, it seems like lower paid staff do a bit better due to benefits, higher paid workers (not management) tend to make less, including benefits than their civilian counterparts. So, being a government housekeeper is not too bad. I know that PA's in the same town make 6 to 12 grand more than the federal guys. It's pretty much a wash.

CAcop
06-22-2012, 14:01
I swear it's like talking to a wall.
If stockholders don't agree with a companies political affiliation then they can, that's right, sell the stock and get out.
Can you say the same for someone forced to pay union dues?
Someone shouldn't be forced to pay dues to an organization that is counter to their beliefs, just because someone says they have to.

Someone could argue that if you don't want to be in a union shop you can find another job.

The "find another job" line gets used on public employees around here all the time when pay is mentioned.

countrygun
06-22-2012, 14:17
Someone could argue that if you don't want to be in a union shop you can find another job.

The "find another job" line gets used on public employees around here all the time when pay is mentioned.

Some could also argue that the "contract" for employment is between the employer and the employee and that by interjecting it self into the agreement the union has deprived both the employer and the non-union employee of their rights. Since "the shop" belongs to the employer robbing him of the ability to choose who he will employ is a grevious violation of his rights.

Lethaltxn
06-22-2012, 14:26
Someone could argue that if you don't want to be in a union shop you can find another job.

The "find another job" line gets used on public employees around here all the time when pay is mentioned.

They could try, but the problem isn't union dues in general. It's the fact that whether you do or don't want to join and pay, you have to.
If I want to become a cop, fireman, teacher, actor, ect., why should I be forced to pay an organization that is counter to what I believe in?

janice6
06-22-2012, 15:26
I had to quit a job because it was a closed shop. I haven't supported them since.

Ruble Noon
06-22-2012, 15:48
The real headline here is Sotomayor did the right thing! She voted against the union. Zero must be pissed.

Maybe she is a wise Latina.

Jerry
06-22-2012, 16:37
Since "the shop" belongs to the employer robbing him of the ability to choose who he will employ is a grevious violation of his rights.

The Federal Government already has that covered.... It's called quotas. They WILL tell you who you MUST hire.

countrygun
06-22-2012, 17:00
The Federal Government already has that covered.... It's called quotas. They WILL tell you who you MUST hire.


Indeed, we have exchanged "the Land of the Free" for "The Land of the Fair"

And those who hate true freedom are smiling.

CAcop
06-22-2012, 21:35
They could try, but the problem isn't union dues in general. It's the fact that whether you do or don't want to join and pay, you have to.
If I want to become a cop, fireman, teacher, actor, ect., why should I be forced to pay an organization that is counter to what I believe in?

Pretty much the way I look at it is that people should be able to make their own choices. Then they live with their choices.