More Winning at SCOTUS!

SCOTUS ^ | June 27, 2018 | SCOTUS

[luv2ski]

JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court. Under Illinois law, public employees are forced to subsi­ dize a union, even if they choose not to join and strongly object to the positions the union takes in collective bar­ gaining and related activities. We conclude that this arrangement violates the free speech rights of nonmem­ bers by compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern. We upheld a similar law in Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U. S. 209 (1977), and we recognize the importance of following precedent unless there are strong reasons for not doing so. But there are very strong reasons in this case. Fundamental free speech rights are at stake. Abood was poorly reasoned. It has led to practical problems and abuse. It is inconsistent with other First Amendment cases and has been undermined by more recent decisions. Developments since Abood was handed down have shed new light on the issue of agency fees, and no reliance interests on the part of public-sector unions are sufficient to justify the perpetuation of the free speech violations

[HamiltonJay]

Yes, but, the union will be fighting this at every level, and make it damn near impossible for these folks to get out of payment.... expect a lot of lower level court fights...

If you are paying these dues and want out, likely will take you a good while to get them to stop stealing from you.

[Empireoftheatom48]

I think it was 5-4, but I may be wrong.

[Lurker]

S
N
T
O
W
Y

L

[laplata]

So no more forced union dues?

><

I think so.

The thugs are going to go ballistic.

[Skooz]

That’s 5.

[luv2ski]

also from SCOTUS blog: Of practical importance, the Court also holds that employees must affirmatively consent before fees can be withheld from their paychecks —the system must be opt-in, not opt-out.

[djstex]

YES! More Winning!
Great DAYS AHEAD!

[rb22982]

No, 5-4

[Licensed-To-Carry]

p. 44–47. 3. For these reasons, States and public-sector unions may no longer extract agency fees from nonconsenting employees. The First Amendment is violated when money is taken from nonconsenting employees for a public-sector union; employees must choose to support the union before anything is taken from them. Accordingly, neither an agency fee nor any other form of payment to a public-sector union may be deducted from an employee, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay. Pp. 48–49. 851 F. 3d 746, reversed and remanded.

[BlessedBeGod]

I was trying to figure it out from the linked opinion, but was having trouble finding it. Can you tell me where to look, so I know for the next time?

Thanks ahead of time!

[Reno89519]

This should be the end of public unions. The court seems to say that that government employees cannot be required to join, cannot be required to pay fee to cover costs of collective bargaining. That kind of puts unions out of business UNLESS they offer something worth paying for. It is now voluntary.

[Reno89519]

This should be the end of public unions. The court seems to say that that government employees cannot be required to join, cannot be required to pay fee to cover costs of collective bargaining. That kind of puts unions out of business UNLESS they offer something worth paying for. It is now voluntary.

[Constitution Day]

This is a HUGE deal.

I ain’t no ways tarred of WINNING!

[ealgeone]

Wow! Isn’t WINNING fun!

[MaxistheBest]

This is a HUGE deal!

[laplata]

That’s 5. Only 4 dissented.

[GonzoII]

I just overdosed on winning🙃🙃🙃😉😉😉🤪🤪🤪🤪

[shelterguy]

Same crying by CNN as yesterday. All the fault of McConnel because he denied a seat to Merrick Garland.

I love it.

[Reno89519]

Next, how far back can employees go to ask for their money back now that it is voluntary?

[Repeal 16-17]

Abood is overruled! No more public-union theft of the hard-earned money of workers. Thank goodness Gorsuch, instead of Garland, was there.