Do Free Speech Rights Apply to Union Members, Too? In Knox v. SEIU, Supreme Court Soon to Rule on SEIU Funding Gimmicks <\/p>\n
by Horace Cooper <\/p>\n
Summary <\/p>\n
Labor unions are notorious for coercive, strong-arm tactics. They have a sordid history of intimidating workers to join a union and stifling members and non-members who oppose that union's agenda. The facts in Knox v. SEIU show that California's public employees' union is no exception to this general rule, resorting to trickery and gimmicks in order to suppress the First Amendment free speech rights of 28,000 non-union workers. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Background <\/p>\n
The U.S. Supreme Court soon will decide whether California's Service Employees International Union (\"SEIU\") -- or any other union -- may temporarily hike union dues or issue special short-term assessments for political advocacy without formally notifying employees. In Knox v. SEIU, the Court will decide whether a State or its union may require a special union assessment intended solely for political campaigning purposes without giving formal notice, or providing employees with an opportunity to opt out of those assessments. <\/p>\n
Under California law, California's non-union employees must pay compulsory \"fair share fees\" to the SEIU as a condition of their employment in order to defray the union's collective bargaining expenses.1 But the U.S. Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence has recognized that every state and local employee is entitled to object to compulsory dues being used for political advocacy that is unrelated to collective bargaining, and as such, a notice advising employees of the union's expenses, as well as the fees and dues it plans to collect, is required. <\/p>\n
In June 2005, the SEIU sent its annual notice laying out the union's finances and giving non-union employees thirty days to object to the fair share fee. After the thirty days had expired, the SEIU announced that a new, undisclosed fee would be assessed to fund the \"Emergency Temporary Assessment to Build a Political Fight-Back Fund.\" According to the union, the money was slated for a variety of political advertisements and campaigns, including four California ballot initiatives aimed at reining-in the power of public sector unions -- not exactly geared to collective bargaining. The compulsory \"Fight-Back Fund\" fee, employees would later learn, amounted to a 25%-33% increase over the paycheck deductions that had been announced in June -- and this time, no one was able to object or opt-out. <\/p>\n
In other words, the union forced workers to pay for \"short term or interim assessment hikes\" in order to fund left-wing initiatives and political activities that had absolutely nothing to do with bargaining for better benefits and wages. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Here is the original post: Do Free Speech Rights Apply to Union Members, Too? In Knox v. SEIU, Supreme Court Soon to Rule on SEIU Funding Gimmicks by Horace Cooper Summary Labor unions are notorious for coercive, strong-arm tactics Continue reading
\nDo Free Speech Rights Apply to Union Members, Too? Supreme Court Soon to Rule on SEIU Funding Gimmicks in Knox v. SEIU<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"