Supreme Court says union must give notice to nonmembers before collecting dues increase

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ ^

[jakerobins]

The Supreme Court says a union must give nonmembers an immediate chance to object to unexpected fee increases that all workers are required to pay in closed-shop situations.

The court on Thursday 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. Knox and others said the union did not give them a legally required notice that the increase was coming.

[Real Cynic No More]

What in the world would the Justices have to fear?

I don't think they have anything to fear.

Having participated in writing highly technical documents, I have an understanding of the process. There are nine strong-willed individuals here, and to get everyone to agree with the wording; having clerks research and incorporate appropriate past references correctly; etc. I don't think this is anything more than focusing the Court's resources on the easier documents first because these are quicker to resolve.

The Court has been working on these decision documents for some time. If their initial time were spent on the OBAMACARE case, they would drag that out (Parkinson's Law) and other cases wouldn't get ruled on. By taking the easier cases first and continuing to work on the OBAMACARE ruling in the interim, their rate of productivity as measured by the number of cases they decide is higher.

Now if they punt until the next session of the USSC, I will have been proven wrong.

From a purely political perspective, I think delaying til next week is best. If the ruling were today, the news media would focus completely on OBAMACARE and Fast and Furious would receive much less attention. Right now, Fast and Furious is finally in the headlines. And if OBAMACARE comes out next Thursday, and it is an affirmation that it is unconstitutional, there will be another week of publicity negative to the Administration.

Remember that last week the media focused on OBAMA's immigration amnesty; the message was positive for HIM. This week, with Fast and Furious, it's negative. If the USSC rules against, then the message will be negative for him, but also for Democratic congrss-people. After all, the Republicans can say, "See, we were right to vote against it. The Democrats did not allow us to provide input into the bill to make it constitutional."

If the USSC rules in favor, then the U.S. has a real problem, maybe one that we can never recover from.

[Salvation]

BTTT!