Investors.com posted an article yesterday explaining the Supreme Court decision regarding the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). I will admit that when I first heard the ruling I did not understand exactly what was involved. I am grateful to Investors.com for their clear concise explanation.

The article explains:

In ruling that workers who choose not to be union members must be able to object immediately to unexpected fee increases or similar levies required of all employees in closed shops, the high court touched a nerve in the conflict between Big Labor and the right-to-work movement.

…The union’s gall in this specific case in underlined by the fact that it was taking money from nonmembers to defeat, in 2005, California’s Proposition 75, which would have prohibited the SEIU from using dues or fees for political contributions without employees’ written consent.

“Thus, the effect of the SEIU’s procedure was to force many nonmembers to subsidize a political effort designed to restrict their own rights,” Justice Samuel Alito noted.

There has been a lot of complaining from the left side of the political spectrum about the Citizen’s United ruling of the Supreme Court. That ruling prohibited the government from restricting spending either by corporations or unions. The left objected to the fact that corporations were now able to get into the election funding game. At least corporations are spending their own profits and are answerable to their stockholders. The use of union dues to fund political campaigns without the consent of those paying the dues is questionable at best. At least now non-union members have some control over the money they are asked to pay the unions.