HIGH COURT DEALS 7-2 BLOW AGAINST SEIU

Brietbart ^ | 6/21/2012 | Breitbart News

[KansasGirl]

Press release from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation (AP story below): Washington, DC (June 21, 2012) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 today, siding with nonmember California state employees challenging a Service Employees International Union (SEIU) political fee charged to them without notice and opportunity to opt out.   The case concludes a prolonged legal challenge affecting some 36,000 California government employees initiated by eight California civil servants who filed a class-action lawsuit with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.   In 2005, SEIU officials imposed a “special assessment” to raise money from all state employees forced to accept union representation as a job condition for a union political fund, regardless of their membership status. The fund was used to defeat four ballot proposals, including one that would have revoked public employee unions’ special privilege of using forced fees for politics unless an employee consents. Employees who refrained from union membership were given no chance to opt out of paying the SEIU’s political assessment.  

[Ramius]

Even a blind squirrel...

[MarineBrat]

Many years ago I worked for a school district maintenance division in California, where there was a strong union. I had no political leanings at the time. I was young and didn’t care about politics at all. But when it was time to join the union, and I saw that they would deduct money from my paycheck, I asked if it was lawful for me to *not join. When they begrudgingly said that I couldn’t legally be required to join, I declined the membership. They insinuated that my co-workers would dislike me for not joining, and that I wasn’t pulling my weight. Even as a political child, I knew that I would never voluntarily give money to a union.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

This is a nice little ruling but the single most critical battle in the GOP war for California is to be fought this fall.

The Union Goons will pull out the stops to defeat this because we are seeking to drain their lifeblood — massive amounts of guarnteed Union membership money in election after election, ad infinitum.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_%22Paycheck_Protection%22_Initiative_(2012)

The Union Thugs are already ramping up in a major way to defeat this prop that will kneecap them, and calling it “Paycheck Deception”.

It is critical that the California voters pass “Paycheck Protection”. This is a severe uphill fight because the California employees union will still have access to the full war chest in order to defeat this proposition.

Also, the stakes are as large for the California unions facing a lost of union dues for politicas, as it was for the Wisconsin Unions to face Scott Walkers reforms.

Se are going to need a repeat of Wisconsin in California.

I am on my knees begging all Freepers of any means to donate to the Paycheck Protection proposition. It doesn’t yet have a number but once we have a proposition number and a PAC, you wonderful, generous Conservatives are going to be sorely needed to help fund the campaign to pass this CRUCIAL proposition.

Nothing on the horizon could set the California Democrats back so far or so fast as passing Paycheck Protection.

[ChildOfThe60s]

A brief moment of clarity in two otherwise addled minds.

I doubt that. I imagine that the illegality of the union's actions was just so blatant that [even] they would have been embarrassed to support it. Much as they would probably have liked to do.

Not that any level of embarrassment will stop them from rubber stamping ObamaCare.

[publius911]

Many years ago I worked for a school district maintenance division in California, where there was a strong union.

Not so many years ago I joined a (rather large) public agency where union membership was required.
I was philosophically opposed to unions and asked what my options were.
I was told that I had to contribute an equal amount to a charity of their choice. All of which turned out to be liberal political activists.
I refused, and told them I would be willing to contribute to a charity of MY choice.

After a few months of dialog, the issue simply "went away."

Nothing changed until I retired.

[cardinal4]

This SCOTUS sucks, where are the other rulings?? They know what they are, why wont they tell us? The whole thing is like Geraldo opening that stupid safe..

[napscoordinator]

This was a no brainer. Seriously mandatory funds taken from pay checks for union???? Never should have gotten beyond first court room. Total waste of time for everyone. I could have easily ruled on this case with ZERO legal background.

[HIDEK6]

Breyer and Kagan dissented.

You mean we got Ruth Buzzi?

[BigEdLB]

At least Geraldo found an empty wine bottle.

[Hetty_Fauxvert]

Yessssss!!! Doing a Happy Dance here in California!

[evad]

"This was a no brainer."

And yet 2 of those boneheads dissented.

[RonF]

That Ballotpedia link doesn’t work.

[Norm Lenhart]

Here... I’ll win this for you. Just run the following in a radio ad as often as possible.

“In an era where an out of control Republican Congress has stripped the rights and liberties from disenfranchises people of color and sexual prefrence; now they are placing undue restrictions on hard working union members in a blatant attempt to fill their coffers for the coming election.

STOP THEM NOW!

Pass the Paycheck Protection act so that Romney and the GOP can’t siphon off hard earned money and poor disenfranchised homosexual minority children go without baby formula.”

Guaranteed to win in all lib markets. Truth, as Obama has shown, does not matter.

[RonF]

From the link:

Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan dissented from the opinion. "If the union's basic administrative system does not violate the Constitution, then how could its special assessment have done so?" Breyer said.

Because special is different from basic. I don't see how hard that logic is.

[Stanwood_Dave]

"A brief moment of clarity in two otherwise addled minds."

Hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day. ;-)

[Covenantor]

Hmmm...Given a GOP administration I would surmise that Dept of Labor would require posting this option at all union workplaces and maybe even in labor literature.

With this admin I wonder. What enforcement is really possible?

[Leep]

This will slow them down a little. however, they’ll figure out another way to fund their agendas.
Its what they do.

[Peet]

 This was a no brainer. Seriously mandatory funds taken from
 pay checks for union???? Never should have gotten beyond
 first court room. Total waste of time for everyone. I could
 have easily ruled on this case with ZERO legal background.

What? You think that freedom of association thing means something?

Liberals don't. You can take that to the bank.

I once recieved my two-weeks notice, initiated by the union because I refused to sign the payroll deduction. A call to the personnel office confirmed that, yes, they WOULD fire me because "it is in the contract" and "our hands are tied."

[I typed what I think of unions here, but deleted it. The only acceptable words in it were "communist," "whorehouse," and "Tijuana" and I'm not sure those are OK.]

[re_nortex]

ALL unions.

I have long advocated the dismantling of all unions. They are nothing more than extortion rackets. It's not just those in the public sector but all of these corrupt outfits. They were born out the international socialist movement by the likes of Bill Haywood, Samuel Gompers, John Lewis and Eugene Debs. All of these were anti-American, anti-business despicable characters. They bred the evil that we see today personified by thugs such as Andy Stern and Dick Trumka.

At best, unions should be prosecuted to the fullest extent using the RICO laws. If that's not possible (although in a just world, it should be), every single state should enact Right to Work laws. Eliminating forced unionism will ultimately mean the elimination of unions. Can you imagine the economic juggernaut America would become when enterprise is freed the union stranglehold?

[Wizdum]

so Kagan is the nuttier replacement for Ginsburg.

Fixed.