• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court: Union must give fee increase notice

cpwill

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
75,666
Reaction score
39,922
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This reigns in Public Unions slightly...but every little bit helps.


The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that unions must give nonmembers an immediate chance to object to unexpected fee increases or special assessments that all workers are required to pay in closed-shop situations.

The court 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 for political campaigning....


The high court disagreed in a 7-2 judgment written by Justice Samuel Alito. "When a public-sector union imposes a special assessment or dues increase, the union must provide a fresh ... notice and may not exact any funds from nonmembers without their affirmative consent," Alito said....

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.


But Sotomayor and Ginsburg said they did not join in the majority opinion that the First Amendment requires an opt-in system for other circumstances like "the levying of a special assessment or dues increase."..
Click to expand...



Here's hoping someone up in Michegan was watching this.
 
Can't argue with that decision, seemed like a no-brainer, and a step in the right direction.
 
Thumbs up to the court on that decision.
 
Didn't they want to go one step further, and instead of having an opt out for the non members, have an opt in for all such fees regarding political activities and messages? And also, as I heard mentioned on the radio, what does this bode for a different, but very similar group of people...shareholders of companies that fund superpacs, or use Corp money in some other way to finance specific politics?
 
Huh, interesting.
Polling Private and Public Union Members

38. In your opinion, it is very reasonable, somewhat reasonable, somewhat unreasonable, or very unreasonable that union leaders across America can spend your union dues on politics without getting your approval?

TOTAL PRIVATE GOVERNMENT
14% 16% 11% NET REASONABLE
4% 5% 3% VERY REASONABLE
10% 11% 8% SOMEWHAT REASONABLE
15% 13% 17% JUST ABOUT RIGHT
31% 27% 36% SOMEWHAT UNREASONABLE
35% 37% 32% VERY UNREASONABLE
66% 64% 68% NET UNREASONABLE
5% 6% 4% I DON’T WANT TO SAY
Click to expand...
 
seems like a common sense ruling to me...

Oh well, if people want to celebrate over nothing, why not.
 
megaprogman said:
seems like a common sense ruling to me...

Oh well, if people want to celebrate over nothing, why not.
Click to expand...
Don't you get it? We're so used to such NONSENSE, that when a little something that actually MAKES sense comes along, it's both newsworthy, and cause of celebration!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom