Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake";p="
The difference is that formerly, nonmembers were forced to opt-out, when many of them didn't know of that right (obviously, unions weren't going to tell them) and those that did know of it faced union stonewalling and pressure of various kinds. Forcing the unions to get nonmembers to explicitly opt in, does, as I said, make a HUGE difference in unions plundering nonmembers paychecks - if it didn't, why do you think they would fight ot all the way to the supreme court? From now on, as far as unions are concerned in washington, lib causes will be paid for by libs ONLY.
|
Would you care to cite ANY evidence that what you say above is true? It's not. The Court did NOT rule on the question of "opt in/opt out," despite the fact that that was the controversy that prompted the case in the first place.
What the Court decided was that STATES have the power to regulate this issue rather than leaving it to the unions to determine. (That's why the decision was UNANIMOUS!) In the specific case in Washington, the SCOTUS sent the case back to the Washington state courts to decide whether the WEA had been in conformance with state law. (The Washington State Supreme Court had decided the state of Washington did NOT have the power to regulate the issue and found for the WEA against the State of Washington.)
As it happens, the Washington State Legislature had already resolved the issue in the future for Washington by siding with the WEA earlier this year. The SCOTUS decision in effect ratified the State's power to do so.
The confusion over this issue stems from the fact that the SCOTUS often issues decisions that are not exactly on point in terms of the controversy that originally prompted the case before them. That's the case here. The Supreme Court authorized states to pass laws about "opt in/opt out," rejecting the union's argument that its "freedom of speech" was infringed by the State of Washington's election laws. Therefore (according to the union) the law should be declared unconstitutional. The Court rejected that argument. (Both liberals and conservatives on the Court rejected it, resulting in the UNANIMOUS decision.)
The effect of the decision was limited by the fact that ONLY Washington State has tried to implement such a law. (As noted, the effort in California applying to public employee unions failed in November 2005. Try googling Proposition 75.)
The decision was indeed a defeat for unions' power to determine how to handle the "opt in/opt out" issue without interference from the individual states. It was NOT a defeat for "liberals" who believe the issue should be determined by legislation, not left to unions' own discretion to determine. (For example, I happen to support the decision though I also support the "opt out" approach.)
If you check the details of the case, you'll find your contentions above are incorrect. The WEA and other unions fought the case to the Washington Supreme Court (and won) in order to retain their discretion on the "opt in/opt out" issue. The State of Washington (and various anti-union groups) then took it to the US Supreme Court. The State of Washington "won" its point that the state had the power to legislate in this area. The anti-union groups hoped the SCOTUS would decide in favor of "opt in" rules as a matter of law. They "lost" in the sense that the SCOTUS refused to decide the issue.
P.S. I live in Washington State and have the benefit of having followed the case and the state legislation surrounding it. Believe me. This decision changes nothing since the Democratic legislature ratified the "opt out" approach a few months ago, a law that has now been approved (in effect) by this SCOTUS decision.