Courting consent

The U.S. Supreme Court has taken on a case from this state involving mandatory union dues and political contributions. The case involves an important principle: individual consent.

Under labor law in this state, a worker may be required to accept a union as his bargaining agent and pay dues for representation. The union may do other things, including backing political candidates, but the worker is not required to pay for that. He may opt out of the union, giving up his right to vote in it, and pay only for representation. This case, State of Washington vs. Washington Education Association, is about the union collecting political contributions from those who opted out. Both sides agree the union needs their consent; the argument is over what counts.

Is it enough if the union tells a worker it is taking his money unless he says no? Or does consent require that he say yes? The first is called "opt-out," because he is assumed to be in the group unless he goes out. The second is called "opt-in," because he is assumed to be out of the group unless he comes in.

In a union shop, the individuals start as members of a group. They are in unless they opt out. But this case is about people who already did opt out.

Common sense says they are out unless they opt in. And that means the court should side with the state.