On June 21, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Knox v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1000, No. 10-1121, holding that when a union representing public-sector employees imposes a special assessment or increases dues to meet expenses that were not disclosed when the original assessment was set, the union must provide a new notice under Teachers v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292 (1986). In this notice, the union must provide an estimate of the portion of its expenses that relate to nonpolitical services such as collective bargaining, so that nonmembers do not pay the union for political, ideological, and other purposes not related to collective bargaining. (Jones, Webber, 2012)
Previously, I was employed at a community college in Connecticut. …show more content…
SIEU, in two previous Supreme Court decisions. In Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977), the court determined that a public-sector union may charge nonmembers for "chargeable expenses" related to collective bargaining but may not require nonmembers to fund the union's political and ideological activities. In Teachers v. Hudson, (1986), the Court established procedural requirements that a union must meet to collect fees from nonmembers without violating their First Amendment rights not to be compelled to fund speech with which they disagree. These procedures require the union to give employees a notice informing them of the union fee for the year ahead and an estimate of the portion of the union's total expenditures in the coming year that will be dedicated to chargeable collective-bargaining activities, as opposed to non-chargeable political or ideological activities. If an employee who is not a member of the union objects to payment of the full amount of union dues, that employee is required to pay only the proportion of the dues that relate to chargeable collective-bargaining activities. This notice is known as a "Hudson notice." (Jones, Webber,
Previously, I was employed at a community college in Connecticut. …show more content…
SIEU, in two previous Supreme Court decisions. In Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977), the court determined that a public-sector union may charge nonmembers for "chargeable expenses" related to collective bargaining but may not require nonmembers to fund the union's political and ideological activities. In Teachers v. Hudson, (1986), the Court established procedural requirements that a union must meet to collect fees from nonmembers without violating their First Amendment rights not to be compelled to fund speech with which they disagree. These procedures require the union to give employees a notice informing them of the union fee for the year ahead and an estimate of the portion of the union's total expenditures in the coming year that will be dedicated to chargeable collective-bargaining activities, as opposed to non-chargeable political or ideological activities. If an employee who is not a member of the union objects to payment of the full amount of union dues, that employee is required to pay only the proportion of the dues that relate to chargeable collective-bargaining activities. This notice is known as a "Hudson notice." (Jones, Webber,