Extra-constitutional labor unions

In 1992, the voters of Washington state declared that unions could not use member dues for political purposes without explicit authorization from the person. Somehow the Washington Education Association (WEA) convinced the state Supreme Court that this was an undue burden on their freedom of speech. Now, in a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court has smacked down that decision:

Amazingly, the WEA convinced the state Supreme Court that requiring it to ask permission before using other people's money -- for political speech that those people do not want to finance -- was an unconstitutional burden on the WEA's right of free speech. This novel (to be polite) theory did not persuade even one of the nine often fractious justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Speaking for the court, Justice Antonin Scalia noted that when government allows agency-shop arrangements, it creates a remarkable entitlement: It gives a private entity, a public employees union, "the power, in essence, to tax government employees." The WEA's complaint -- a notably brazen example of the entitlement mentality -- was against the supposedly burdensome "opt in" condition placed on its exercise of that power. With understandable asperity, Scalia said: "The notion that this modest limitation upon an extraordinary benefit violates the First Amendment is, to say the least, counterintuitive."

George Will goes on to detail how unions, working from desperation, are trying to roll back both free speech and open democracy with a "card-check" system. This is a long way from "Norma Rae."

Extra - Remember this union commercial from the Seventies? Classic. (Warning: salty language)