Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-1121c4d6.pdf
Page Number: 8.0

4 

KNOX v. SERVICE EMPLOYEES 

Opinion of the Court 

On July 30, shortly after the end of the 30-day objection
period  for  the  June  Hudson  notice,  the  SEIU  proposed  a 
temporary  25%  increase  in  employee  fees,  which  it  billed 
as  an  “Emergency  Temporary  Assessment  to  Build  a  Po- 
litical  Fight-Back  Fund.”    App.  25.  The  proposal  stated
that the money was needed to achieve the union’s political 
objectives, both in the special November 2005 election and 
in  the  November  2006  election.  Id.,  at  26.    According  to
the  proposal,  money  in  the  Fight-Back  Fund  would  be
used  “for  a  broad  range  of  political  expenses,  including 
television  and  radio  advertising,  direct  mail,  voter  regis-
tration, voter education, and get  out the vote activities in 
our work sites and in our communities across California.” 
Ibid.  The proposal specifically stated that “[t]he Fund will 
not  be  used  for  regular  costs  of  the  union—such  as  office 
rent, staff salaries or routine equipment replacement, etc.” 
Ibid.  It noted that “all other public worker unions are in 
the  process  of  raising  the  extraordinary  funds  needed  to 
defeat the Governor.”  Id., at 27.  And it concluded: “Each 
of us must do our part to turn back these initiatives which 
would allow the Governor to destroy our wages and bene-
fits  and  even  our  jobs,  and  threaten  the  well-being  of  all
Californians.”  Ibid.    On  August  27,  the  SEIU’s  General  
Council voted to implement the proposal.

On  August  31,  the  SEIU  sent  out  a  letter  addressed 
to  “Local  1000  Members  and  Fair  Share  Fee  Payers,”  an- 
nouncing  that,  for  a  limited  period,  their  fees  would  be
raised  to  1.25%  of  gross  monthly  salary  and  the  $45-per-
month  cap  on  regular  dues  would  not  apply.  Id.,  at  31. 
The letter explained that the union would use the fund to
“defeat Proposition 76 and Proposition 75 on November 8,” 
and  to  “defeat  another  attack  on  [its]  pension  plan”  in
June 2006.  Ibid.  The letter also informed employees that, 
in  the  following  year,  the  money  would  help  “to  elect  a
governor  and  a  legislature  who  support  public  employees
and the services [they] provide.”  Ibid.