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…
Churches are effectively subsidized by virtue of tax-exempt status. I am putting money in the collection plate.
Former SEIU member here.
SEIU screwed up. No other way around it.
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.
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).
Ok, that’s lame.
Sure, you can just decline to accept some of your compensation for your job, no big deal!
Y’know, single-payer health insurance would significantly undercut union power, if that is one’s goal.
Hey, whaddya know, a Bricker thread that doesn’t tell the whole story.
Here is how SCOTUSblog 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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
Which practice? Special assessments? No refunds? Compelled speech in “closed shops?”
It’s the difference between compelled and freedom.
In this particular case, can the union be sued for retroactive payments in regards to the political lobbying they spent?
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.
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:
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.
You didn’t read the opinion, did you?
Well, corporations are people, and unions aren’t. Pretty simple, really.
Your argument is 100% baseless, why not challenge their explanation for this in the decision?
Do you have evidence that this claim and the following justification is false?