# No, SEIU, SCOTUS Says You Have to Keep Your Grabby Hands Out of Other People' Pockets! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 21, 2012, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-seiu-scotus-says-you-have-to-keep-your-grabby-hands-out-of-other-people-pockets/625853 "2012-06-21T16:20:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-seiu-scotus-says-you-have-to-keep-your-grabby-hands-out-of-other-people-pockets/625853/41 "2012-06-21T19:15:50Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > What about when it’s a church? I think we both know that churches routinely abuse political advocacy rules without losing tax exemption. And if they do that, you can stop dropping money in the collection plate any time. _Keep thinking… keep thinking… there must be SOME way I can make the unions look OK here…_ ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-seiu-scotus-says-you-have-to-keep-your-grabby-hands-out-of-other-people-pockets/625853/42 "2012-06-21T19:16:51Z")
Churches are effectively subsidized by virtue of tax-exempt status. I _am_ putting money in the collection plate. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-seiu-scotus-says-you-have-to-keep-your-grabby-hands-out-of-other-people-pockets/625853/43 "2012-06-21T19:29:49Z")
Former SEIU member here. SEIU screwed up. No other way around it. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-seiu-scotus-says-you-have-to-keep-your-grabby-hands-out-of-other-people-pockets/625853/44 "2012-06-21T19:33:22Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Actually, it’s just a matter of shopping around. But if you work for MegaCorp, you can’t shop around for different unions. There’s one and only one. But if you are a union member, you get to vote for the union’s leadership and otherwise participate in it’s democratic process, like any other group. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-seiu-scotus-says-you-have-to-keep-your-grabby-hands-out-of-other-people-pockets/625853/45 "2012-06-21T19:34:08Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Churches are effectively subsidized by virtue of tax-exempt status. I _am_ putting money in the collection plate. Wouldn’t bother me to take away their tax exempt status. Of course, that would apply to the ACLU (and a whole host of other organizations, too). ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-seiu-scotus-says-you-have-to-keep-your-grabby-hands-out-of-other-people-pockets/625853/46 "2012-06-21T19:34:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. > > Your company, or you, have every right to decline health insurance, buy your own policy, whatever you like, and still keep your job. Ok, that’s lame. Sure, you can just decline to accept some of your compensation for your job, no big deal! ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-seiu-scotus-says-you-have-to-keep-your-grabby-hands-out-of-other-people-pockets/625853/47 "2012-06-21T19:36:29Z")
Y’know, single-payer health insurance would significantly undercut union power, if that is one’s goal. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-seiu-scotus-says-you-have-to-keep-your-grabby-hands-out-of-other-people-pockets/625853/48 "2012-06-21T19:45:19Z")
Hey, whaddya know, a **Bricker** thread that doesn’t tell the whole story. Here is how [SCOTUSblog](http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/01/when-union-fees-go-up-must-a-%E2%80%9Chudson-notice%E2%80%9D-go-out/) described the issues at stake in this case earlier this year: > [@](#): > > At issue in the case is whether a public sector labor union that imposes a temporary mid-year fees increase to be used for political purposes must provide employees with a separate “Hudson notice” that explains how the fees were calculated and gives employees an opportunity to object. Even before it reaches that question, however, the Court must consider whether the case is still alive or has instead become moot. However, our shamelessly activist Court went beyond that in order to create new First Amendment jurisprudence, namely that an opt-out is no longer good enough, but rather that an opt-_in_ is now required. Note that the petitioners never challenged the validity of the opt-out framework in their brief. That’s what the concurrences and dissents dealt with. At first glance, it might seem strange that the Supreme Court would drastically curtail speech like this. Since money = speech, it stands to reason that creating additional hurdles and administrative expenses for unions acts to reduce their speech. But then you remember that these are unions we’re talking about, not corporations, and any confusion drifts away. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-seiu-scotus-says-you-have-to-keep-your-grabby-hands-out-of-other-people-pockets/625853/49 "2012-06-21T19:46:06Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > I wonder why I’m suddenly thinking again about that thread in Elections about the politicization of the Supreme Court…? The selection of judges has always been political but do you have any reason to believe this decision was not based on the individual justices principles? ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-seiu-scotus-says-you-have-to-keep-your-grabby-hands-out-of-other-people-pockets/625853/50 "2012-06-21T19:47:39Z")
Side note: given the shamelessly activist nature of our Supreme Court, the union really only has itself to blame for taking the case so far and giving the Supremes a chance to make new law in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Invisible\_Chimp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f05b48/32.png) [@Invisible\_Chimp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Invisible_Chimp)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-seiu-scotus-says-you-have-to-keep-your-grabby-hands-out-of-other-people-pockets/625853/51 "2012-06-21T19:56:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > _Keep thinking… keep thinking… there must be SOME way I can make the unions look OK here…_ Union, singular. The SEIU screwed up here in this one particular case. You’re trying to use this case to demonize all unions. Can you cite widespread use of this practice among many unions over a long timeframe? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-seiu-scotus-says-you-have-to-keep-your-grabby-hands-out-of-other-people-pockets/625853/52 "2012-06-21T19:58:28Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > Hey, whaddya know, a **Bricker** thread that doesn’t tell the whole story. > > Here is how [SCOTUSblog](http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/01/when-union-fees-go-up-must-a-%E2%80%9Chudson-notice%E2%80%9D-go-out/) described the issues at stake in this case earlier this year: > > However, our shamelessly activist Court went beyond that in order to create new First Amendment jurisprudence, namely that an opt-out is no longer good enough, but rather that an opt-_in_ is now required. Note that the petitioners never challenged the validity of the opt-out framework in their brief. That’s what the concurrences and dissents dealt with. > > At first glance, it might seem strange that the Supreme Court would drastically curtail speech like this. Since money = speech, it stands to reason that creating additional hurdles and administrative expenses for unions acts to reduce their speech. But then you remember that these are unions we’re talking about, not corporations, and any confusion drifts away. Not at all – the money, and speech, at issue belongs to the workers. They now get to decide if the union is a mouthpiece they want. Money is speech, so you can’t compel the workers to provide speech they don’t want to. Makes perfect sense. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-seiu-scotus-says-you-have-to-keep-your-grabby-hands-out-of-other-people-pockets/625853/53 "2012-06-21T19:59:29Z")
> [@Invisible\_Chimp](#): > > Union, singular. The SEIU screwed up here in this one particular case. You’re trying to use this case to demonize all unions. Can you cite widespread use of this practice among many unions over a long timeframe? Which practice? Special assessments? No refunds? Compelled speech in “closed shops?” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-seiu-scotus-says-you-have-to-keep-your-grabby-hands-out-of-other-people-pockets/625853/54 "2012-06-21T20:01:01Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Ok, that’s lame. > > Sure, you can just decline to accept some of your compensation for your job, no big deal! It’s the difference between compelled and freedom. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-seiu-scotus-says-you-have-to-keep-your-grabby-hands-out-of-other-people-pockets/625853/55 "2012-06-21T20:04:06Z")
In this particular case, can the union be sued for retroactive payments in regards to the political lobbying they spent? ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-seiu-scotus-says-you-have-to-keep-your-grabby-hands-out-of-other-people-pockets/625853/56 "2012-06-21T20:05:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Not at all – the money, and speech, at issue belongs to the workers. They now get to decide if the union is a mouthpiece they want. Money is speech, so you can’t compel the workers to provide speech they don’t want to. > > Makes perfect sense. Yeah, the workers could decide to opt-out. The Supreme Court decided to change that framework completely on its own initiative. You know, judicial activism. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-seiu-scotus-says-you-have-to-keep-your-grabby-hands-out-of-other-people-pockets/625853/57 "2012-06-21T20:08:13Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > Side note: given the shamelessly activist nature of our Supreme Court, the union really only has itself to blame for taking the case so far and giving the Supremes a chance to make new law in the first place. Except for it’s value as pure Rhetoric do you have any cites in the decision to show this was an “activist court”? The questions before the court were: > [@](#): > > (1) May a state, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, condition employment on the payment of a special union assessment intended solely for political and ideological expenditures without first providing a notice that includes information about that assessment and provides an opportunity to object to its exaction? (2) May a state, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, condition continued public employment on the payment of union agency fees for purposes of financing political expenditures for ballot measures? Opt-in and opt-out had never been directly addressed by SCOTUS the opinion and the union has no constitutional right to compel others to pay for their electioneering. As the opinion states it is the correct decision for the court to put the burden on the party who does not have said enumerated right. In light of the abused by the union in this case I do not see how that conflicts with the question as presented. Thus the you charge that this was an action of an activist court is false. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-seiu-scotus-says-you-have-to-keep-your-grabby-hands-out-of-other-people-pockets/625853/58 "2012-06-21T20:10:57Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Opt-in and opt-out had never been directly addressed by SCOTUS… You didn’t read the opinion, did you? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-seiu-scotus-says-you-have-to-keep-your-grabby-hands-out-of-other-people-pockets/625853/59 "2012-06-21T20:11:02Z")
Well, corporations are people, and unions aren’t. Pretty simple, really. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-seiu-scotus-says-you-have-to-keep-your-grabby-hands-out-of-other-people-pockets/625853/60 "2012-06-21T20:12:59Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > Yeah, the workers could decide to opt-out. > > The Supreme Court decided to change that framework completely on its own initiative. You know, judicial activism. Your argument is 100% baseless, why not challenge their explanation for this in the decision? > [@](#): > > Although the difference between opt-out and opt-in > schemes is important, our prior cases have given sur- > prisingly little attention to this distinction. Indeed, ac- > ceptance of the opt-out approach appears to have come > about more as a historical accident than through the > careful application of First Amendment principles. Do you have evidence that this claim and the following justification is false? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-seiu-scotus-says-you-have-to-keep-your-grabby-hands-out-of-other-people-pockets/625853.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-seiu-scotus-says-you-have-to-keep-your-grabby-hands-out-of-other-people-pockets/625853.md?page=4)