# 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:** 4
**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, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-seiu-scotus-says-you-have-to-keep-your-grabby-hands-out-of-other-people-pockets/625853/61 "2012-06-21T20:14:50Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Well, corporations are people, and unions aren’t. Pretty simple, really. This is when I am sad to be politically more to the left, this is also an absurd assertions. This type of baseless claim is not a reasoned response. There is no enumerated right to compel others to speak, they explain this in the opinion if you wanted to argue on facts vs. rhetoric. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-seiu-scotus-says-you-have-to-keep-your-grabby-hands-out-of-other-people-pockets/625853/62 "2012-06-21T20:15:37Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > I don’t think that celebrating rulings like this as some kind of “smackdown” does the situation any favors. On some level, I’m as pro-union as they come, and this court judgement STILL merited a quiet “yes!” and I thought about giving a fist-pump. The fact that unions are highly useful doesn’t change that it’s worth celebrating when the court rules against a large organization taking more money from people in contravention of both the law and the will of those people. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-seiu-scotus-says-you-have-to-keep-your-grabby-hands-out-of-other-people-pockets/625853/63 "2012-06-21T20:17:45Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > I fully expect the leftist Doper outrage that two Supreme Court Justices voted on purely political grounds without regard to legal basis in this case. I haven’t actually read the dissent yet, but I’m provisionally willing to believe you’d have to be a partisan idiot to dissent in this. And nothing in the dissent is likely to change my mind. That said: > [@Bricker](#): > > _Keep thinking… keep thinking… there must be SOME way I can make **the unions** look OK here…_ (bolding mine) No, Bricker. Not “the unions”. “The SEIU Local 1000”, in this specific instance. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-seiu-scotus-says-you-have-to-keep-your-grabby-hands-out-of-other-people-pockets/625853/64 "2012-06-21T20:22:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s immoral to force people to pay you money for political lobbying. Hentor. The fact that the union was stopped from doing that does not weaken my own position in the slightest. > > And it’s absolutely hilarious to watch the process of selecting an argument… \*Hmmm, can’t say it was a political decision, because 2 of the liberals would get criticized… can’t say it was all that bad, becaue the conduct was so outrageous… have to settle for a sorrowful lament about unions in general, and hope I can get the conversation away from the specifics. \* Did you or did you not say: > [@](#): > > Another sharp, and well-deserved, rebuke to a public sector union. Yipppeee! How is that “specific”? Seems like a general statement wishing bad tidings upon public sector unions. If that is specific, I look forward to your explanation. If you cannot explain, I await your apology and retraction. It is certainly poor form to put words into someone else’s mouth like you have. They are certainly incorrect as regards my feelings on this matter. I also specifically indicated what content of yours I was responding to. If you don’t want your glee at bad thinga generally happening to unions, you shouldn’t make a general statement about bad things happening to unions and finish with “Yippee” or even “Yipppeee!” You should also refrain from subsequently describing yourself as gleeful. When you fail to sufficiently restrain yourself, you introduce those feelings into the discussion. ---
**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, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-seiu-scotus-says-you-have-to-keep-your-grabby-hands-out-of-other-people-pockets/625853/65 "2012-06-21T20:22:48Z")
> [@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. I assume you are going to continue under the premise that if you assert this completely unsupported claim enough that people will overlook you have ignored every challenge to it? Cite or new material please. ---
**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, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-seiu-scotus-says-you-have-to-keep-your-grabby-hands-out-of-other-people-pockets/625853/66 "2012-06-21T20:24:28Z")
> [@](#): > > Indeed, acceptance of the opt-out approach appears to have come about more as a historical accident than through the careful application of First Amendment principles. Let me translate that for you, **rat\_avatar** , and maybe you’ll stop bloviating. The key part of that phrase is “acceptance of the opt-out approach.” This means the opt-out approach had been accepted as the proper framework for _Hudson_ notices. It’s what the law was. It’s what unions based their conduct on. Now comes this case, and completely unbidden, Alito and gang decide that what this case needs is some brand new “careful application of First Amendment principles.” It was an injustice that was literally crying out to be rectified. Well, not by the folks who actually brought the case. But I’m sure it bugged Samuel Alito. ---
**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, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-seiu-scotus-says-you-have-to-keep-your-grabby-hands-out-of-other-people-pockets/625853/67 "2012-06-21T20:26:39Z")
A reaction from my good friends at _Daily Kos_. > [@](#): > > So with Citizens United, the activist conservative Supreme Court ruled that corporations could spend unlimited amounts of unregulated money to buy elections. > > Today, that same activist conservative Supreme Court ruled that unions had to get opt-in permission from members to use dues for political purposes (something petitioners didn’t even ask for). > > So does that mean corporations need to get opt-in permission from shareholders in order to be allowed to use company resources for political purposes? Logic would dictate so… Offered without comment. ---
**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, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-seiu-scotus-says-you-have-to-keep-your-grabby-hands-out-of-other-people-pockets/625853/68 "2012-06-21T20:27:16Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > Let me translate that for you, **rat\_avatar** , and maybe you’ll stop bloviating. The key part of that phrase is “acceptance of the opt-out approach.” This means the opt-out approach had been accepted as the proper framework for _Hudson_ notices. It’s what the law was. It’s what unions based their conduct on. > > Now comes this case, and completely unbidden, Alito and gang decide that what this case needs is some brand new “careful application of First Amendment principles.” It was an injustice that was literally crying out to be rectified. Well, not by the folks who actually brought the case. But I’m sure it bugged Samuel Alito. No the question was never addressed in Hudson. The court was pretty much forced to address it in this case because although the union claimed to offer a “refund” they put up massive barriers to those who did opt-out. So again, cite the parts of Hudson where they directly addressed opt-in or opt-out. ---
**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, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-seiu-scotus-says-you-have-to-keep-your-grabby-hands-out-of-other-people-pockets/625853/69 "2012-06-21T20:28:56Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > A reaction from my good friends at _Daily Kos_. > > Offered without comment. Is that because the commentary would show what a stupid analogy that is? When was the last time you were compelled to buy stock in a corporation? ---
**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, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-seiu-scotus-says-you-have-to-keep-your-grabby-hands-out-of-other-people-pockets/625853/70 "2012-06-21T20:30:52Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > Let me translate that for you, **rat\_avatar** , and maybe you’ll stop bloviating. The key part of that phrase is “acceptance of the opt-out approach.” This means the opt-out approach had been accepted as the proper framework for _Hudson_ notices. It’s what the law was. It’s what unions based their conduct on. > > Now comes this case, and completely unbidden, Alito and gang decide that what this case needs is some brand new “careful application of First Amendment principles.” It was an injustice that was literally crying out to be rectified. Well, not by the folks who actually brought the case. But I’m sure it bugged Samuel Alito. Let us look at the majority opinion and explain to me how you would justify infringing on an individual’s freedom of speech as is the practical result of opt-out. Also explain how this reasoning is politically motivated by the majority? > [@](#): > > Acceptance of the free-rider argument as a justification > for compelling nonmembers to pay a portion of union dues > represents something of an anomaly—one that we have > found to be justified by the interest in furthering “labor > peace.” Hudson, 475 U. S., at 303. But it is an anomaly > nevertheless. > Similarly, requiring objecting nonmembers to opt out > of paying the nonchargeable portion of union dues—as > opposed to exempting them from making such payments > unless they opt in—represents a remarkable boon for > unions. Courts “do not presume acquiescence in the loss of > fundamental rights.” College Savings Bank v. Florida > Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd., 527 U. S. 666, 682 > (1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). Once it is > recognized, as our cases have, that a nonmember cannot > be forced to fund a union’s political or ideological activi- > ties, what is the justification for putting the burden on > the nonmember to opt out of making such a payment? > > Shouldn’t the default rule comport with the probable > preferences of most nonmembers? And isn’t it likely that > most employees who choose not to join the union that > represents their bargaining unit prefer not to pay the full > amount of union dues? 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. But a “[**u]nion 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.**” Hudson, supra, at 305 > (internal quotation marks omitted). > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Drunky\_Smurf](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drunky_smurf/32/449_2.png) [@Drunky\_Smurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drunky_Smurf)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-seiu-scotus-says-you-have-to-keep-your-grabby-hands-out-of-other-people-pockets/625853/71 "2012-06-21T20:31:12Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > (bolding mine) > No, Bricker. Not “the unions”. “The SEIU Local 1000”, in this specific instance. Bricker wasn’t the one who made it about “unions”. post 18 > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > I don’t get all this anti-union stuff. Why do people think it’s progress to make sure other workers make less just because they do? ---
**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, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-seiu-scotus-says-you-have-to-keep-your-grabby-hands-out-of-other-people-pockets/625853/72 "2012-06-21T20:32:18Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > No the question was never addressed in Hudson. > > The court was pretty much forced to address it in this case because although the union claimed to offer a “refund” they put up massive barriers to those who did opt-out. > > So again, cite the parts of Hudson where they directly addressed opt-in or opt-out. It was part of the jurisprudence by the time of Hudson. Read Sotomayor’s concurrence, she lays all that out. And stop confidently harping at me as if you know what you’re talking about. ETA: Footnote from _Hudson_: > [@](#): > > The nonmember’s “burden” is simply the obligation to make his objection known. See Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. at 367 U. S. 774 (“[D]issent is not to be presumed – it must affirmatively be made known to the union by the dissenting employee”) ---
**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, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-seiu-scotus-says-you-have-to-keep-your-grabby-hands-out-of-other-people-pockets/625853/73 "2012-06-21T20:33:25Z")
> [@](#): > > Is that because the commentary would show what a stupid analogy that is?.. When was the last time you were compelled to buy stock in a corporation? No, it means precisely what it says. I much prefer my own words in my own mouth, if that’s OK with you… > [@](#): > > …When was the last time you were compelled to buy stock in a corporation?.. Well, then, would that mean that unions which operate in states with “Right to work” laws are exempt? I mean, if its all about “force”? ---
**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, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-seiu-scotus-says-you-have-to-keep-your-grabby-hands-out-of-other-people-pockets/625853/74 "2012-06-21T20:34:51Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Well, then, wouldn’t that mean that unions which operate in states with “Right to work” laws are exempt? I mean, if its all about “force”? This applies to agency shops and compelled dues, I am not sure how someone would say it would apply if those dues were not compelled. ---
**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, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-seiu-scotus-says-you-have-to-keep-your-grabby-hands-out-of-other-people-pockets/625853/75 "2012-06-21T20:38:48Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > A reaction from my good friends at _Daily Kos_. > > > [@](#): > > > > So with Citizens United, the activist conservative Supreme Court ruled that corporations could spend unlimited amounts of unregulated money to buy elections. > > > > Today, that same activist conservative Supreme Court ruled that unions had to get opt-in permission from members to use dues for political purposes (something petitioners didn’t even ask for). > > > > So does that mean corporations need to get opt-in permission from shareholders in order to be allowed to use company resources for political purposes? Logic would dictate so… > > Offered without comment. The Daily Kos is as just about as credible as Rush Limbaugh or any other political shock media property. Here they intentionally and outright LIE about the nature of the previous decision. It may have been an outcome of the decision but it is a pure lie to say that was the reason or the intent. ---
**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, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-seiu-scotus-says-you-have-to-keep-your-grabby-hands-out-of-other-people-pockets/625853/76 "2012-06-21T20:51:37Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > It was part of the jurisprudence by the time of Hudson. Read Sotomayor’s concurrence, she lays all that out. > > And stop confidently harping at me as if you know what you’re talking about. > > ETA: Footnote from _Hudson_: And guess what, opt-out of the union in an agency shop still requires a positive act by the employee. But once they state that preference why should they be forced to restate that preference again and again and again. Would it not be logical that had they wished to support the unions political causes they could join the union to indicate a change in their beliefs? ---
**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, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-seiu-scotus-says-you-have-to-keep-your-grabby-hands-out-of-other-people-pockets/625853/77 "2012-06-21T20:58:35Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > And guess what, opt-out of the union in an agency shop still requires a positive act by the employee. > > But once they state that preference why should they be forced to restate that preference again and again and again. > > Would it not be logical that had they wished to support the unions political causes they could join the union to indicate a change in their beliefs? It should also be noted that Hudsen was just using dicta from Street, it was not based on any findings in that case nor was it a finding in Hudsen And thus from CENTRAL GREEN CO. v. UNITED STATES [“dicta may be followed if sufficiently persuasive but are not binding.”](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=99-859) But more importantly the union abused opt-out in this case to injure the employees rights. That is justification to examine the question in light of the 1st amendment claim. I will keep reading but I see a persuasive reason for opt-out. ---
**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, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-seiu-scotus-says-you-have-to-keep-your-grabby-hands-out-of-other-people-pockets/625853/78 "2012-06-21T20:58:50Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > …It may have been an outcome of the decision but it is a pure lie to say that was the reason or the intent. And you know this, how, exactly? Have you some special telepathic insight into the minds of the Supremes? ---
**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, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-seiu-scotus-says-you-have-to-keep-your-grabby-hands-out-of-other-people-pockets/625853/79 "2012-06-21T21:01:20Z")
So, **rat\_avatar** , are you abandoning your claim that opt-out wasn’t the established law prior to this case? ---
**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, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-seiu-scotus-says-you-have-to-keep-your-grabby-hands-out-of-other-people-pockets/625853/80 "2012-06-21T21:15:05Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > So, **rat\_avatar** , are you abandoning your claim that opt-out wasn’t the established law prior to this case? Nope, it was NOT a settled matter of law, are you really trying to play the card that SCOTUS is bound by dictum? and that by clarifying or changing or nullifying it they acted as an “activist court”? [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=3) [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=5)