On July 14 the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that states may require public-sector labor unions to get permission from workers before using their union fees for political activities.
The 9-0 decision applies to government workers who have chosen not to be members of the union.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the court. Because it even would be constitutional for
The question was if it is enough for unions to give nonmembers the chance to opt out of their fees being used for political purposes - Under this standard, the burden is on the nonmember to object, and if no objection is heard, the union can assume consent.
The high court yesterday reaffirmed that standard, saying that it's OK for a state to put the burden on the nonmember. But the court also said that standard is a "floor," not a "ceiling" -- meaning that states may impose further restrictions on unions-------
The man who brought the case said the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the idea that unions have a constitutional right to spend nonmember dues on politics. THE FAIRSHARE FEE INCLUDES NO POLITICAL SPENDING.
Officials at the National Right to Work Foundation -- which helped bring the suit said the Supreme Court passed up an opportunity to change the union rules.
They have no dues paying members. Where is the money coming from? Corporate generosity to union busting groups?
No one is being forced to pay Union Dues in Maine, they are being asked to pay for the expenses that the State has determined the Union must cover for all employees, Union members or not.
"Our fear was that if the Supreme Court had ruled the other way, the constitutionality of federal campaign restrictions on unions would be next," he said.Yeah,
He is afraid that the restrictions placed on the free speech of Union members might be removed. I am sure the same group believes in uncontrolled corporate speech.
The Supreme Court didn't rule that the teachers union had violated any law.