InsideSources

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that public-sector workers cannot be forced to fund union activities Wednesday in a case that could have a huge impact on the labor movement. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled in favor of plaintiff Mark Janus.

Janus argued in his legal challenge that mandatory union dues violate his constitutional rights. His attorney argued during the hearing Feb. 26 that workers should have the right to choose whether they want to fund a union or not. The Supreme Court agreed with the arguments in its decision.

“We conclude that this arrangement violates the free speech rights of nonmembers by compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern,” wrote Justice Samuel Alito Jr. for the majority.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) is the specific union the lawsuit is challenging. But the overall aim is to set a legal precedent at the highest court that would impact all public-sector unions. Critics argue that unions are critical to protecting workers and should be compensated for that work.

“Compelling individuals to mouth support for views they find objectionable violates that cardinal constitutional command, and in most contexts, any such effort would be universally condemned,” wrote Alito.

The U.S. Supreme Court decision overturns decades of case law stretching back to the 1977 case Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. It also impacts the public-sector, where unions have most of their support. Janus v. AFSCME Council 31 is now poised to become one of the most critical labor-related decisions in the country’s history.

“Government workers like me should not have to bear the burden of supporting political and policy causes we disagree with in order to serve our communities and state,” Janus said in a statement Feb. 26. “The right to say ‘no’ to a union is just as important as the right to say ‘yes,’ but for over 40 years, government workers have been denied that right.”

The U.S. Constitution bans being forced to fund political activities or other forms of compelled speech. Labor unions in many states can require payment so long as nonmembers have the option of paying a nonpolitical fair-share fee. But the lawsuit argues that public-sector collective bargaining is equivalent to political lobbying.

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation (NRTW) has been assisting in the lawsuit alongside the Liberty Justice Center (LJC). The two groups are highly supportive of policies that give workers a choice when it comes to being associated with a union. NRTW has been a leading advocate for right-to-work laws for decades.

“Today’s decision is a landmark victory for rights of public-sector employees coast to coast that will free millions of teachers, police officers, firefighters and other public employees from mandatory union payments,” said Mark Mix, NRTW president.

Labor unions and other supports see the case more as a politically motivated assault against worker rights. They believe unions are critical to protecting workers and upholding their rights against abusive employers. They warn that optional dues could diminish the ability of unions to fulfill that goal because some workers might free-ride.

“The case aims to erode the freedom to form unions to improve our lives and the communities we serve,” AFSCME detailed on its website. “Real freedom is about making a decent living from our hard work; it’s also about having time to take a loved one to the doctor, attend a parent-teacher conference and retire in dignity. The corporate special interests behind this case do not believe that working people should have the freedom to negotiate a fair return on their work.”

The free-rider argument has been used by unions against both legal challenges and right-to-work laws. Labor unions are obligated to represent everyone in a workplace once they get voted in as the exclusive representative. That includes workers who don’t pay which might encourage some to stop since they’ll get the benefits anyway.

Mark Janus supporters have contested the workers are being forced to accept union representation, a characterization that the Court agreed with.

“He argues that he is not a free rider on a bus headed for a destination that he wishes to reach but is more like a person shanghaied for an unwanted voyage,” the court wrote, accepting that argument that some workers might not even want the benefits their workplace union is fighting for like seniority policies, but they are still legally obligated to fund those activities. Unions also do a lot of activism not directly associated with their members.

Labor unions could avoid the free-rider problem outright by organizing member-only groups. Member-only unions aren’t obligated to represent nonmembers. Labor unions generally decide not to become members-only because exclusive representation blocks other labor groups from trying to organize an established bargaining unit.

Labor unions have also put the case at the forefront of numerous protests that have been held over the last year. The Service Employees International Union has been encouraging members and supporters for months to protest nationwide when the decision gets held down.

The U.S. Supreme Court found that unions could require fees from nonmembers in its earlier decision from 1977. It also established the rule that labor unions must provide nonmembers the option of paying a nonpolitical fair-share fee. The latest decision effectively overturns those rules for public-sector workers.

Labor unions could potentially lose a lot now that mandatory union payments are outlawed in the public-sector. Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows that the union membership rate stands at 34.4 percent for public-sector workers, but only 6.5 percent for private. But the true impact will depend on how many workers leave and stay.

Democrats might also see a hit in their funding with how much of that support comes from unions. The Center for Union Facts (CUF) found in a report last year that labor unions have contributed nearly $765 million to the Democratic causes between 2012 and 2016. That amounts to about 99 percent of their total advocacy budget.

Justice Elena Kagan recognized the political impact of the decision in her dissent.

The CUF has been a long-time advocate for worker choice policies like right-to-work laws. It has also argued in support of a pending bill known as the Employee Rights Act. The bill primarily changes union elections and how dues payments can be taken.

Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker saw a significant decline in membership rates when he made dues optional for state workers in 2011. The union membership rate in the state dropped from 14.1  percent to just 9.0 percent by 2016. But federal employees already have that right and membership is still fairly high in the federal workforce.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard a nearly identical case back in 2016. California teacher Rebecca Friedrichs eventually lost that case with the court split after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Justice Neil Gorsuch was appointed to fill the empty seat and became the deciding vote in favor of the state workers against the union.

Follow Connor on Twitter

California teacher Rebecca Friedrichs seemed close to ending forced union dues in the public-sector before an unexpected turn made her lose at the highest court. She detailed how that fight has continued in the two years since while talking with InsideSources.

The U.S. Supreme Court looked likely to rule in her favor when it finally heard the case in early 2016. She alleged alongside nine other teachers that mandatory union dues or fees in the public-sector were a violation of their constitutional rights. The challenge was intended to set a legal precedent to outlaw all mandatory union payments across the public-sector.

Friedrichs and the other teachers eventually lost the case after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. His death split the court which resulted in a tied vote by the justices. Illinois state worker Mark Janus was able to bring an identical challenge back to the court when his lawsuit was heard by the justices Feb. 26.

Scalia was expected to rule on the side of the teachers but his passing occurred before the court issued its decision. Friedrichs knew they had lost when the news came but quickly resolved to keep fighting against forced dues. And she fought the best way she knew how as a teacher – by educating people on what was going on.

“Throughout my 28 years as a teacher, I have talked to thousands of teachers,” Friedrichs told InsideSources. “Most have no idea that their forced dues are being used for a political agenda. No idea. They have the right to know that. They should know where their money is going. And they should be given the choice of whether they want their money to go there or not.”

Janus actually attended oral arguments in the Friedrichs case two years prior while his case was still working its way through the lower courts. Friedrichs returned the favor by organizing a group of teachers who traveled to Washington D.C. so that they could rally in support when his case was heard. She notes they have become friends since her case.

“I think it’s very important that teachers, parents, and students be at the Mark Janus rally because forced unionism has damaged everyone, but it has really damaged our schools,” Friedrichs said. “It has really damaged our students, our parents, our teachers, and our profession. Like I said, they divided us. My main goal this week is to bring people back together.”

Friedrichs has done a lot over the last two years to fight back against forced union payments. She is working to publish a book called “Standing Up To Goliath” that will detail her own fight against the California Teachers Association. She has also given talks on the issue and started a nonprofit called For Kids and Country.

“The other thing I have witnessed over and over is unions shouting down parents at school board meetings, unions shouting down teachers, silencing us, degrading our profession,” Friedrichs said. “So when I see my colleagues, students, and parents get hurt, I just can’t sit back and say nothing. So I fight for them by speaking up.”

Friedrichs argues that teachers’ unions pit teachers and parents against each other to advance their political agenda. For Kids and Country was started to promote reform that put the safety and needs of children and teachers before the demands of unions. She is also starting a campaign called Adopt a Teacher which is intended to encourage people to support teachers who may feel isolated in the toxic workplace, she argues, that unions create.

“I’m an educator at heart,” Friedrichs said. “I believe if we can teach the American people what’s really going on in these unions, they’ll reject it. They’ll say that’s wrong. It’s so obvious, you don’t force people to fund a political agenda.”

Both legal challenges allege that union payments in the public-sector should be optional because they are inherently political. The U.S. Constitution bans compelled speech – including being forced to fund political activities. Labor unions currently can require payments from nonmembers so long as they have the option of paying a nonpolitical fair-share fee.

The fair-share fee can only cover the cost of representing that worker and nothing political. Labor unions and their supporters argue the fee is needed to avoid what is known as the free-rider problem. Once a union becomes the exclusive representative for a workplace they have to represent every worker regardless of whether they pay.

The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the right of unions to collect mandatory payments during the 1977 case Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. The court in that case also established the nonpolitical fair-share fee. Friedrichs and her lawyers contested that public-sector collective bargaining is indistinguishable from political lobbying.

“The unions collect billions through forced union dues from middle-class people like myself,” Friedrichs said. “They spend these billions on the union political and social agenda. The unions supposedly speak to represent me and other teachers. No, they are not speaking on my behalf. The unions are speaking out on behalf of union leadership. They are just using my money to do it.”

Those opposed to mandatory union payments have also argued that many workers are being forced to accept union representation. Some workers might not even want the benefits their workplace union is fighting for – but still are legally obligated to fund those activities. Friedrichs notes that her union used her own money to fight her in court.

“We should not be forced to fund an organization against our will,” Friedrichs said. “Now if that organization is going to force us to accept their representation, that’s their problem. They’re the ones forcing it on us. It was the unions that asked for the permission from the government to be our exclusive representative. That’s the first thing they ask for.”

Friedrichs and others like her consider themselves to be forced-riders. She notes that when workers decide to become nonmembers they lose their ability to vote at union meetings and get punished in other ways like having their liability insurance revoked. But while they are being punished by the union they are still obligated to fund it.

Labor unions have also argued that mandatory fees serve a compelling state interest in keeping labor peace. Laws or policies that interfere with fundamental constitutional rights must have a compelling state interest to justify that impact. They argue it helps with negotiations and labor unrest by making it clear which unions the state is negotiating with.

“People who say that have never been forced to fund a union because these government unions are so mean to us if we dare to question them,” Friedrichs said. “They harass us to such a degree that there is a total lack of peace. I guess it gives peace to the government because they don’t have to bargain with so many people, but it’s not giving any peace to the workers.”

Friedrichs notes that they could also become member-only unions but decide not to because they lose exclusive bargaining rights – which blocks other labor groups from trying to organize a unionized workplace. She argues that unions create the free-rider problem for themselves by pursuing exclusive representation.

Labor movement supporters argue that unions are critical to protecting workers and upholding their rights. They warn that optional dues could diminish the ability of unions to fulfill that goal because some workers might free-ride on the benefits. They also argue that the legal challenges are a corporate ploy to undermine those protections.

The Center for Individual Rights worked alongside a handful of worker choice groups to help the teachers in their challenge. Friedrichs notes that she didn’t have a voice until advocacy groups with political sway and funding came in to help her. The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation was also highly supportive of her lawsuit and is now helping Janus with his case.

“I’m one little elementary school teacher,” Friedrichs said. “I don’t have any money, I don’t have any power, I don’t have big money behind me. For 25 years I had no voice. I served as a union representative to try to gain a voice within the union. They squelched me. They basically told my colleagues and I, don’t you dare question what the union is doing.”

Friedrichs adds that when teachers did speak out they were shunned or verbally attacked. She wrote an op-ed for local newspapers and tried to get her story out but it was difficult at first. She was finally able to get her story out when she caught the attention of national advocacy groups. She started to gain a voice little by little after that.

“We were shut down,” Friedrichs said. “I couldn’t make a difference from the inside which is why it was so liberating when some folks who had support from donors agreed with us. They got behind us in our lawsuit. These teachers have a story to tell.”

The U.S. Supreme Court could make a decision in the Janus case at anytime in the coming months with a ruling that is likely to come around when the current term ends in June. Justice Neil Gorsuch was appointed to fill the empty seat and is likely to become the deciding vote since the other justices are unlikely to change their vote from the last case.

Labor unions could lose a lot if the justices rule against mandatory dues. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported that the union membership rate stands at 34.4 percent for public-sector workers, but only 6.5 percent for private. But the true impact is still unknown since its unclear how many workers will actually choose to leave.

Follow Connor on Twitter

The U.S. Supreme Court was surrounded by demonstrators during a case Monday on whether to outlaw mandatory union dues in the public-sector.

Lead plaintiff Mark Janus argues in his legal challenge that mandatory union dues violate his constitutional rights. He argues that workers should have the right to choose whether they want to fund a union or not. Those opposed counter that unions are critical to protecting workers and upholding their rights and should be compensated for that.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) is the specific union the lawsuit is challenging with the aim of setting a legal precedent that would impact all public-sector unions. Janus v. AFSCME Council 31 could very well become one of the most critical labor-related lawsuits in the country’s history.

Mark Janus addressed the crowd shortly after oral arguments. He was at the podium for less than a minute as hecklers shouted over him by chanting “shame” – in a likely reference to the hit fantasy series Game of Thrones. He thanked the crowd before leaving. Attorney Jacob Huebert took to the podium shortly after him when the heckling began to die down.

“We are pleased how everything went in the courtroom today,” Huebert, who is helping to represent Janus, said. “We remain very optimistic. This is the biggest case for worker rights in a generation, and we’re hopeful that the Supreme Court will restore a worker’s right to choose whether they want to give money to a political advocacy group like a union. And hopefully, the court will say clearly that when you get a government job, you don’t leave your rights at the door.”

Huebert works as the director of litigation at the Liberty Justice Center (LJC) – which has been providing legal assistance in the case alongside the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation (NRTW). The groups are hoping the court overrules a decades-old decision that has upheld mandatory union payments.

Janus v. AFSCME (Connor D. Wolf/InsideSources)

The U.S. Constitution bans compelled speech, like being forced to fund political activities. Labor unions currently can require dues in states without right-to-work protections so long as nonmembers have the option of paying a nonpolitical fair-share fee. The lawsuit argues that public-sector collective bargaining and political lobbying are the same, and thus all payments should be optional.

Democrats and others on the left typically believe that unions are critical to protecting workers and upholding their rights. They warn that optional dues could diminish the ability of unions to fulfill that goal because some workers might free-ride on the benefits by not funding the union. They also warn that the case is a corporate ploy to undermine those protections.

“We stand united in fighting a rigged system that rewards the super-wealthy at everyone else’s expense,” AFSCME President Lee Saunders said in a statement. “And we will not rest until we build an economy where everyone has a voice on the job, a seat at the table and a chance to succeed.”

Mark Janus speaks outside U.S. Supreme Court (Connor D. Wolf/InsideSources)

Unions that get voted in as an exclusive representative have to represent every worker in that workplace regardless of whether they paid, so some workers might choose not to, knowing they’ll get the benefits anyway. Both sides in the debate claimed to be for workers and freedom as they rallied during oral arguments.

“The challenges that teachers face each day seem insurmountable,” an elementary school teacher told union supporters during the rally. “These challenges are not insurmountable because we are not alone. The National Education Association is with us because it is us. This teachers’ union is built on unity. It represents our voice and empowers us as professionals.”

Janus v. AFSCME (Connor D. Wolf/InsideSources)

Mark Janus supporters have contested the workers are being forced to accept union representation. Some workers might not even want the benefits their workplace union is fighting for – but still are legally obligated to fund those activities. Seniority policies, for example, reward workers based on how long they’ve been working as opposed to how hard.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) has filed legal briefs and issued coalition letters against mandatory union dues as the case has worked its way to the highest court. CEI released a report Jan. 24 arguing that unions should choose to form as member-only groups to avoid the free-rider problem.

“No worker who wants to serve the public should be forced to pay union fees against their will and at the risk of losing his or her job,” CEI labor policy expert Trey Kovacs said in a statement provided to InsideSources. “Since collective bargaining in the public sector is inherently political, it is a blatant violation of the First Amendment rights of public-sector workers. Everyone deserves the freedom to choose how they are represented at work and where their money goes.”

Janus v. AFSCME (Connor D. Wolf/InsideSources)

Labor unions that are members-only aren’t obligated to represent nonmembers. Labor unions generally decide not to become members-only because exclusive representation blocks other labor groups from trying to organize an established bargaining unit. But that also means they have to represent every worker in that workplace even if they don’t pay dues.

The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to overturn its decision upholding mandatory fees during the 1977 case Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. The court found in that case that unions could require fees from nonmembers. It also established the nonpolitical fair-share fee.

Labor unions and their supporters have also argued that the state workers are being used in a corporate scheme to undermine worker rights. The Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a progressive research nonprofit, tackled the issue Feb. 21 in a paper that allegedly found the case is a coordinated effort financed by wealthy donors.

Janus v. AFSCME (Connor D. Wolf/InsideSources)

The U.S. Supreme Court heard a nearly identical case back in 2016. Rebecca Friedrichs eventually lost that case with the court split after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Justice Neil Gorsuch was appointed to fill the empty seat and is likely to become the deciding vote in favor of the state workers against the union.

Labor unions could lose a lot if the justices rule against mandatory dues. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported that the union membership rate stands at 34.4 percent for public-sector workers, but only 6.5 percent for private. But the true impact is still unknown since its unclear how many workers will actually choose to leave.

The U.S. Supreme Court could make a decision at anytime in the coming months with a ruling that is likely to come around when the current term ends in June.

Follow Connor on Twitter

Labor unions and their supporters gathered in cities across the country Saturday to protest a range of issues including a case against mandatory union payments.

The Working People’s Day of Action was held in cities across the country with the aim of defending worker freedom fighting and what protesters see as a rigged economy. The U.S. Supreme Court was a primary focus for protesters with an upcoming case that could potentially outlaw compulsory union dues in the public-sector.

Labor unions and their supporters argue that mandatory union payments help ensure they can properly fight for workers. They also warn that the case is a corporate ploy to undermine those protections. Critics counter that workers should have a choice on whether they want to pay union dues. The oral arguments for the case are being heard Monday.

“Wealthy special interests, backed by the Trump Administration, want the Supreme Court to rig the economy even more in their favor with a case called Janus v. AFSCME Council 31,” protest organizers said on their website. “The forces behind this case simply do not believe that working people should have the same freedoms and opportunities as they do.”

The protest organizers add that it’s about standing up for the freedom of working people to come together so that they can fight collectively for equitable pay, affordable health care, quality schools, vibrant communities, and an overall better future. Protesters gathered in places like New York City, Philadelphia, and Washington D.C.

Janus v. AFSCME Protest (Connor D. Wolf/InsideSources)

Illinois state worker Mark Janus mounted his legal challenge against mandatory union payments after he was forced to fund a local chapter of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation (NRTW) and the Liberty Justice Center (LJC) have been assisting him in his challenge.

“This is about the resources that workers have collectively to be able to get a fair play in the field,” Erin Yeagley, a member with the Maryland State Education Association, told InsideSources from the Washington D.C. protest. “We fought very hard over many decades so that workers can come together and fight. If the Supreme Court undermines that by allowing people to free-ride where unions have to invest resources without getting participation back from everyone, things are going to break apart.”

Yeagley adds that a ruling against unions has the potential to hurt all workers since it will become harder to fight for workplace rights. The free-rider view gets to the heart of the union argument – and has been used in opposition to similar cases and right-to-work laws.

Janus v. AFSCME Protest (Connor D. Wolf/InsideSources)

“Right not there are fee payers,” AFSCME Local 3829 President Qaddafi Sabree told InsideSources from the protest. “They’re not in the union, but they pay a fee to the union to not be in the union. Once Janus v. AFSCME goes through, and if Janus wins, they no longer have to pay that fee. But the union still has to represent them.”

Labor unions currently can require dues in many states so long as nonmembers have the option of paying a nonpolitical fair-share fee. Labor unions that get voted in as an exclusive representative for a workplace have to represent every worker regardless of whether they pay so some might choose not to fund the union knowing they’ll get the benefits anyway.

Janus v. AFSCME Protest (Connor D. Wolf/InsideSources)

“If you don’t want to be in the union I understand,” AFSCME Local 2743 President Felicia Dantzler told InsideSources. “And I think with Janus he should still have raises and good working conditions comparable to dues-paying members. But when it comes to anything out of that, when you need representation, and you still want me to represent you, and you haven’t paid a dime, no, you should not continue to sit by the dues-paying members and get the same rights.”

Those opposed to compulsory union dues have countered that there are workers who oppose the benefits their union is fighting for. Some teachers, for example, might not want seniority policies because it rewards people for how long they have worked instead of what they contribute. It’s also, for them, about the principle of not having to fund an organization that was forced upon them.

“Seeing union bosses pretend to be for freedom in the Janus case is downright offensive to the millions of workers around the country currently forced to pay a union official every paycheck just to keep their job,” NRTW public information vice president Patrick Semmens told InsideSources. “It’s important to remember that a ruling for Mark Janus would not stop a single worker from joining a union or paying union dues. The only change would be that union membership and payments would be voluntary, and workers who don’t support the union would have freedom to choose for themselves.”

Janus v. AFSCME Protest (Connor D. Wolf/InsideSources)

AFSCME Local 709 President Debra Walker argues that those workers who don’t agree with what the union is fighting for should have gone to meetings so they could let their grievances be known. That way, she argues, their fellow members and union leadership can work together to address problems for the betterment of all workers.

“If you don’t want to pay dues but still want representation you need to leave,” Walker told InsideSources from the Washington D.C. protest. “This is not about one person. All these people out here. We’re struggling. We don’t need anyone to take away what we’re building. This is my first time in a union and to strip all of that from people. People hurt every day, we’re struggling out here. It’s not fair.”

Janus v. AFSCME Protest (Connor D. Wolf/InsideSources)

Walker and the other protesters fear that a ruling against unions could be devastating for workers across the country. Unions could potentially become so weakened that many workers will be unable to advocate for rights at work – and some established rights might be diminished overtime.

“It’s taking away, busting up the union,” Walker said. “They’re being disrespectful to all the working people out there. We will no longer have the bargaining chip to save us. It’s about workers’ rights. You cannot take that away from us. So Janus needs to sit down, he needs to stop it. If you don’t want to pay, come out of the union.”

Labor unions have a lot to lose if the court rules against compulsory payments in the public-sector. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported that the union membership rate stands at 34.4 percent for public-sector workers, but only 6.5 percent for private.

Janus v. AFSCME Protest (Connor D. Wolf/InsideSources)

“It could be potentially devastating,” Yeagley said. “Not just for unions workers, but for workers generally across the country. It is an opportunity to organize and reinvigorate the labor movement. But it’s not the opportunity we would have wanted to see. It’s going to be a big blow to unions, but if there’s any silver lining, it’s that it has wakened people up.”

Sabree notes that unions have successfully fought for many worker rights in both workplaces and the national level. Unions achieved the 40-hour workweek, minimum wage increases, safe workplaces, and a range of other benefits and protections. He adds that without them workers will be harmed.

“I think it is going to be bad, but it isn’t going to be overnight,” Sabree said. “I think in five to 10 years we’ll really see a difference in union membership. However, I think it will be really bad so unions will make a comeback. But it might be a generation from now.”

Janus v. AFSCME Protest (Connor D. Wolf/InsideSources)

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the fair-share fee during the 1977 case Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. The justices found that unions could require a nonpolitical fair-share fee from nonmembers. Janus and his lawyers argue in their case that public-sector collective bargaining and political lobbying are indistinguishable.

AFSCME is also likely to also argue that mandatory fees serve a compelling state interest in keeping labor peace. Laws or policies that impact fundamental constitutional rights are evaluated by the court using a strict scrutiny test. That test requires that the law has a compelling state interest to justify its impact on constitutional rights.

Follow Connor on Twitter

The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide whether to outlaw mandatory public-sector union dues in a ruling that is likely not to end the fight.

Lead plaintiff Mark Janus brought his challenge against compulsory union dues to the highest court on the alleged ground that his constitutional right to free speech has been violated. The nine justices will have to decide whether he’s right after hearing the case Feb. 26.

The Supreme Court ruling against mandatory dues could cause more legal challenges as unions adopt new strategies on how to collect funding from workers. A ruling in favor of the union, however, could potentially be followed by more lawsuits against forced dues.

The ruling might not be what anyone expects either – leaving the aftermath unknown to an extent. The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation (NRTW), which has been assisting Janus in his challenge, has been preparing for any possibility with the hope the court outlaws mandatory dues in the public-sector.

“We know from experience after winning Supreme Court cases before or from what happens after a right-to-work law gets passed and dues are supposed to be completely voluntary,” Patrick Semmens, vice president for public information at NRTW, told InsideSources. “We know that enforcing those rights will be very difficult.”

Labor unions have been known to deploy obstacles to discourage workers from opting out. A common method uses what are known as opt-out windows. Workers in those unions can only opt-out during certain times of the year. Sometimes information is not readily available to workers either.

NRTW helps to enforce right-to-work by assisting workers who feel a union is ignoring the law after a state has passed it. The group writes op-eds and issues press releases to inform workers they can provide legal support in such situations. The group still has ongoing legal cases in states like Michigan which passed right-to-work back in 2012.

“Enforcement is probably going to be the most important followup if they win,” Semmens said. “I suspect we’ll have a lot of calls from workers who will say I heard about that case, I want to exercise my rights under the Janus decision and the union isn’t letting me. That’s probably the most immediate followup.”

Semmens adds that the exact details of the decision will help inform further actions as well once they are known. NRTW is also assisting another case which is aimed at furthering worker choice when it comes to unionization. Hill v. Service Employees International Union asks whether workers should have the right to not associate with their workplace union at all.

“We have another case on petition to the U.S. Supreme Court right now and that brings in the opt-in versus opt-out issue,” Semmens said. “One of the things we’ve seen, and when it came to following up the Harris case, which established voluntarily dues for home healthcare workers, is that the unions have gone and said, well everyone is still considered a member and they’ll have to keep paying dues unless they jump through a hoop to get out.”

Labor unions are normally formed as exclusive representatives which means they speak on behalf of all workers once they get voted in at a workplace – even nonmembers who pay nothing. Semmens adds that he is also hopeful the court will rule against compelled association in the Janus case but still has Hill in case the justices decide not to go that far.

The U.S. Supreme Court will essentially have to determine whether mandatory public-sector union activities are inherently political. Labor unions can currently require dues in states without right-to-work protections so long as nonmembers have the option of paying a nonpolitical fair-share fee. The lawsuit contests that public-sector collective bargaining is indistinguishable from political lobbying.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in favor of compulsory union dues would mean decades of case law being upheld. California teacher Rebecca Friedrichs was expected to win in her lawsuit against forced dues but lost because of a tied decision after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. But such an outcome wouldn’t mean the end of the legal challenges.

“If we have something like in Friedrichs and the court comes in tied four to four, or something like that, there are a number of other cases that we have ongoing that raise these same issues,” Semmens said. “None of them are this close to the Supreme Court, of course, but I know there are at least four or five cases we have.”

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) has closely followed the case as it has advanced towards the highest court. The free-market think tank has filed legal briefs and issued coalition letters against mandatory union dues. CEI labor policy expert Trey Kovacs suspects more unions might become member-only.

“Another one could be to form member-only unions which basically addresses the free-rider problem,” Kovacs told InsideSources. “You’d have unions maintain the labor laws that are on the books like they do as exclusive representatives, but would only represent the workers that are full-fledged members, and basically let the free-riders go.”

Labor unions have the ability to form members-only unions which aren’t obligated to represent nonmembers. Labor unions generally decide not to become members-only because exclusive representation blocks other labor groups from trying to organize an established bargaining unit – a benefit known as monopoly rights.

Unions do face a tradeoff when they decide to become exclusive representatives. They have to represent every worker whether they pay dues or not. Unions have argued that optional dues encourage workers to free-ride on the benefits they provide since they have to represent everyone anyways.

CEI released a report Jan. 24 arguing that unions should choose to form as member-only groups to avoid the free-rider problem. That way they don’t have to represent workers that don’t pay them. The group also released a recent video depicting a government worker who becomes dismayed about being forced to pay a union.

The Supreme Court ruling in favor of the state workers would directly impact where their membership rates are strongest. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) found that the public-sector has the highest rate of unionized workers at 34.4 percent. In the private-sector only 6.4 percent of workers are unionized.

But the true impact is still unknown since its unclear how many workers will actually choose to leave. States like Wisconsin saw a significant decline in membership rates while Michigan was more minor. Additionally, federal workers have had the option for years but still maintain fairly steady membership rates.

“What it shows is unions fare fairly well in right-to-work settings,” Kovacs said. “I think a lot of the doomsday predictions are overstated, and I think what will likely happen is the unions will spend a lot more time and money recruiting and attracting members and surveying members what their needs are, rather than spending money on ideological or political purposes.”

Follow Connor on Twitter

Illinois state worker Mark Janus said his fight is not about the money but rather helping all workers. Janus made the comments Thursday while discussing his case to outlaw mandatory union dues in the public-sector.

Janus works as a child support specialist for the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services. His fight against organized labor began when he was forced to fund a union he doesn’t support. But for him it’s not just about the fees he is forced to pay, it’s about all workers stuck in a similar situation. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear his challenge Feb. 26.

“It’s that lack of choice that I’m fighting against, and it’s not just for me, it’s for all public-sector workers,” Janus said when asked by InsideSources. “It’s the fact that you have to stand up for something because if we didn’t have principals, where would we be as a country.”

Janus was speaking at a dinner hosted by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation (NRTW) and the Liberty Justice Center (LJC) – which have been assisting him in his lawsuit by providing legal assistance. The groups hosted the dinner to give a handful of reporters, who have closely followed the case, a chance to meet him.

The U.S. Supreme Court found that unions could require fees from nonmembers during the 1977 case Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. That decision also found that unions must also provide nonmembers the option of paying a fee which can only cover the cost of representing that worker – and not political activities.

The lawsuit argues that public-sector collective bargaining and political lobbying are indistinguishable. Public-sector unions negotiate with the government because of the workers they represent. Thus, the lawsuit asserts, all public-sector union dues and fees should be optional because they are inherently political.

Janus also wanted to make clear that he is not against unions themselves. He believes there is a place for unions and collective bargaining. Rather he simply believes that workers should have a choice on whether they want to be associated with and fund such an organization.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the specific union being challenged, argues that mandatory payments are needed to ensure unions are able to properly protect workers and their workplace rights. The union also argues the lawsuit is an attack by corporate interests to hurt that mission.

Labor unions argue that the nonpolitical fee helps to discourage workers from free-riding off the benefits they fight for. They have to represent every worker regardless of whether they pay once they get voted in as an exclusive representative for a workplace. But critics contest the workers are being forced to accept those so-called benefits – which many might not even want because they don’t believe it helps them.

Follow Connor on Twitter

The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to hear arguments next week on whether to outlaw mandatory public-sector union dues in a case that could fundamentally change labor law.

Lead plaintiff Mark Janus and two other Illinois state workers argue that mandatory dues violate their constitutional rights under the First Amendment. The lawsuit is aimed at reversing a decades-old ruling by the court which affirmed the right of labor unions to collect fees from nonmembers. The case is scheduled to be heard Feb. 26.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) is the union the lawsuit is specifically challenging – with the eventual aim to end mandatory dues or fees for all public-sector workers. Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, as a result, could become one of the most impactful labor-related lawsuits in the country’s history.

The arguments comedown to whether mandatory payments to unions are beneficial to workers. Those on the left typically believe unions are critical to protecting workers and upholding their rights and should be compensated for that. Those opposed to that idea argue workers should have the right to choose whether paying a union is best for them.

Janus v. AFSCME specifically targets public-sector unions because they deal directly with the government. The U.S. Constitution bans compelled speech, which includes being forced to fund political activities. Labor unions currently can require dues in many states so long as nonmembers have the option of paying a nonpolitical fair-share fee.

The lawsuit argues that many activities conducted by public-sector unions are political in nature because they deal with the allocation of government resources. The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation (NRTW) and the Liberty Justice Center (LJC) have been assisting the state workers in their challenge.

“This is speech directed at the government,” Patrick Semmens, vice president for public information at NRTW, told InsideSources. “There is no question about that, that’s what a public-sector union does. The government selects the union, forces everyone else to subsidize the union just so it can turnaround and talk to the government.”

The fair-share fee can only cover the cost of representing that worker and not political activities. Labor unions and their supporters argue that the fair-share fee helps avoid what is known as the free-rider problem. Labor unions that get voted in as an exclusive representative for a workplace have to represent every worker regardless of whether they pay – so some workers might choose not to pay, knowing they’ll get the benefits anyways.

“The case aims to erode the freedom to form unions to improve our lives and the communities we serve,” AFSCME argued. “Real freedom is about making a decent living from our hard work; it’s also about having time to take a loved one to the doctor, attend a parent-teacher conference and retire in dignity. The corporate special interests behind this case do not believe that working people should have the freedom to negotiate a fair return on their work.”

Semmens counters that the argument doesn’t hold up because many political organizations advocate for policies that help people without expecting payment. NRTW, he argues, could make the same argument since it advocates for policies that help workers gain a choice on whether to pay their union. Some workers might also oppose the benefits their union is fighting for.

“We don’t view these people as free-riders, they are forced-riders,” Semmens said. “If you want to extend the metaphor, these are kidnap victims. They’ve been driven to a place they don’t want to go and then told it’s only fair for them to pay their share of the gas. It really doesn’t work. These people were forced into union representation they don’t want.”

Semmens adds that in many cases they are harmed by union representation that has been forced on them against their will. He points to seniority policies that many unions advocate for – which reward workers based on how long they’ve been working as opposed to how hard they work.

AFSCME might also argue that mandatory fees serve a compelling state interest in keeping labor peace. Laws or policies that impact fundamental constitutional rights are evaluated by the court using a strict scrutiny test. That test requires that the law have a compelling state interest to justify its impact on constitutional rights.

The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled in favor of the union position during the 1977 case Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. The justices found that unions could require fees from nonmembers while also establishing the nonpolitical fair-share fee. But the new lawsuit argues public-sector collective bargaining and political lobbying are indistinguishable.

Semmens notes that Abood has caused problems over the decades because the line on what counts as political activities was not clearly defined. This has resulted in later court decisions that have contradicted each other. He notes, for example, that teachers’ unions could advocate for seniority without it being political merely based on how they do it.

“If they were to send a lobbyist into the state legislature to push for a bill to do that, in theory, they shouldn’t be able to charge nonmembers for that,” Semmens said. “But if they ask for the very exact same thing over a bargaining table, when they’re trying to get the school board or state to agree to that in a union contract, they charge people for that.”

The U.S. Supreme Court in recent years has begun applying a stricter standard on what constitutes political activities. Harris v. Quinn dealt with whether home healthcare providers could be unionized as state workers. Knox v. Service Employees International Union dealt more specifically with what the standard should be generally.

“A large part of it is pointing out what it said in Knox and Harris,” Semmens said. “Prior to that, the court had never really laid out what level of scrutiny applies to these forced fees to determine whether or not there is a First Amendment violation. And in Knox, for the very first time, they said strict or exact scrutiny is what applies.”

Semmens adds that the standard determined in Abood would not reach that level of judicial scrutiny which Knox later established. A decision in favor of the state workers, he argues, could fix some of these contradictions by establishing a clear line on what counts as political speech.

Labor unions and their supporters have also argued that the state workers are being used in a corporate scheme to undermine worker rights. The Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a progressive research nonprofit, tackled the issue Feb. 21 in a paper that allegedly found the case is a coordinated effort financed by wealthy donors.

“This case is one of the most important cases to corporate interest groups,” EPI labor counsel Celine McNicholas, who authored the paper, said in a statement. “The outcome of Janus will affect millions of working people across the country and will impact the public services we depend on these workers to provide.”

The U.S. Supreme Court heard a nearly identical case back in 2016. Rebecca Friedrichs and nine other teachers challenged mandatory payments to the California Teachers Association (CTA). Their lawsuit also sought to prove that public-sector union activities are political by nature.

Friedrichs and the other teachers eventually lost their case after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. His death split the court which resulted in a tie vote by the justices. A split decision defaults to the lower-court which ruled against the teachers. Justice Neil Gorsuch was appointed to fill the empty seat and is likely to become the deciding vote.

Gorsuch is expected to rule in favor of the state workers against the union, but nothing will be known for sure until the final decision is unveiled later on. Such a decision would set a legal precedent at the highest court which could potentially apply to all public-sector workers.

Labor unions could lose a lot if the justices rule in favor of the state workers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported that the union membership rate stands at 34.4 percent for public-sector workers, but only 6.5 percent for private. But the true impact is still unknown since its unclear how many workers will actually choose to leave.

AFSCME did not respond to a request for additional comment.

Follow Connor on Twitter

The U.S. Supreme Court could necessitate the need for members-only unions if it decides to rule against mandatory dues in the public-sector, argued a report Wednesday.

Labor unions claim that optional dues encourage workers to free-ride on the benefits they fight for. Workers might decide not to fund their union knowing that they will get the benefits anyway. But a decision against mandatory union dues wouldn’t be a complete victory for the workers that oppose them either.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a free-market think tank, released a report highlighting how members-only unions can potentially solve problems for both sides in the case. Members-only unions aren’t obligated to represent nonmembers who don’t pay dues – though unions lose a huge benefit known as exclusive bargaining rights.

“Despite the potential benefits from banning forced union dues, neither workers nor unions likely will be completely satisfied with the new arrangement,” the CEI report states. “Non-members will still work under a union-negotiated agreement they may not want, and unions must represent employees who do not pay dues.”

Labor unions also have the ability to form members-only unions which aren’t obligated to represent nonmembers. The CEI report adds that very little change to state labor relations law is necessary. Union members would continue to work under a collective bargaining agreement and related state laws would remain unchanged.

“A policy of members-only unions would resolve the above issues,” the report states. “Under such a policy, a union would only represent, negotiate on behalf of, and collect dues from members of the labor organization. Non-members can exercise their newfound freedom to negotiate a contract with the public employer tailored to their needs.”

Labor unions, however, generally decide not to become members-only because exclusive representation blocks other labor groups from trying to organize an established bargaining unit. The tradeoff is the union has to represent every worker whether they pay dues or not once they organize a workplace as an exclusive representative.

The U.S. Constitution bans compelled political speech. Lead plaintiff Mark Janus and two other Illinois state workers argue in the case that mandatory dues violate their constitutional rights because public-sector union bargaining is political in nature – since it deals with the allocation of government resources.

Labor unions cannot require anyone to be a member, but in many states, they can require payments from every employee once they organize a workplace. Nonmembers must be given the option to pay a nonpolitical fee instead of full dues. The lawsuit, however, argues that public-sector collective bargaining and political lobbying are indistinguishable.

CEI also filed an amicus brief Dec. 6 in support of outlawing mandatory union dues in the public-sector. The brief details several instances in which unions have used compelled dues to engage in political advocacy – in an alleged violation of constitutional law.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) is the primary union that the lawsuit targets – but the eventual aim is to end mandatory dues or fees for all public-sector workers by setting a legal precedent at the highest court.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided to accept the case Sept. 27 following a split decision for an identical case last year. The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation (NRTW) has been assisting in the lawsuit alongside the Liberty Justice Center (LJC).

Janus v. AFSCME could become one of the most influential labor-related lawsuits in the country’s history. It touches upon fundamental federal laws that have shaped how Americans have worked throughout modern history.

Follow Connor on Twitter

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a lawsuit challenging mandatory union dues in the public-sector in a case that could hit a key source of financial support for Democrats.

Unions must allow nonmembers to withhold political contributions beyond the fees required to represent them, but the process to stop paying these fees can often be difficult. In the upcoming Supreme Court case, lead plaintiff Mark Janus and two other Illinois state workers argue in their lawsuit that mandatory union dues violate their constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court decided to accept the case Sept. 27 following a split decision for an identical case last year. The lawsuit argues that mandatory union dues in the public-sector are a violation of the First Amendment. No one can be required to fund political speech, with the lawsuit claiming public-sector union activities are political by nature.

“It would be a big blow to the union coffers,” James Plunkett, senior counsel for the employer-focused law firm Ogletree Deakins, told InsideSources. “Where does a lot of the union’s money go to? It goes, for the most part, to the Democratic Party. So there are these larger political implications as well. Between the First Amendment, union finances, and political funding, there’s a lot at play here.”

The Center for Union Facts (CUF) found in a report Sept. 19 that labor unions have contributed nearly $765 million to the Democratic Party and liberal special interest groups between 2012 and 2016. The report adds that the political contributions total 99 percent of their total advocacy budget.

“A pro-employee ruling would drain public-sector unions of a significant chunk of political advocacy funds,” CUF communications director Luka Ladan told InsideSources. “History has shown that, when given a choice, many union members refuse to support union officials’ left-wing political crusade with their money.”

The CUF has been a long-time advocate for worker choice policies like right-to-work laws. It has also argued in support for a pending bill known as the Employee Rights Act. The bill primarily changes union elections and how dues payments can be taken. The CUF ran a two-page advertisement in support of the bill October 2.

Mark Janus and the other state workers are basing their claim on a First Amendment challenge. The U.S. Constitution bans compelled speech, which includes being forced to fund political activities. Abood v. Detroit Board of Education allows unions to require dues so long as nonmembers have the option of  not paying for political activity.

Labor unions engage in collective bargaining to negotiate the wages, benefits, and working conditions for the workers they represent. The lawsuit argues that public-sector collective bargaining is political because it deals with the allocation of taxpayer dollars and government resources.

Labor unions and their supporters claim that optional dues encourage workers to free-ride. Workers might decide not to fund their union knowing that they will get the benefits anyways. Critics counter that it’s really about giving workers a choice instead of forcing them to fund an organization they do not support.

Labor unions and their supporters denounced the lawsuit as an underhanded attack to undermine unions by taking away dues-paying members. But it is still unclear how public-sector workers will respond if they gain the right to choose whether to fund their union. The impact could be potentially huge with unionization rates the highest in the public-sector.

“No one likes to say this, but money is a big thing here,” Plunkett said. “And that’s why it’s so important to the unions because its a big source of revenue and it gets, for the most part, funneled to the Democratic Party. For Mr. Janus, it’s not necessarily about money; it’s more about having to fund an organization which he abhors.”

The Supreme Court ruling in favor of the state workers would directly impact where their membership rates are strongest. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) found that the public-sector has the highest rate of unionized workers at 34.4 percent. In the private-sector only 6.4 percent of workers are unionized.

Wisconsin saw a significant decline in membership rates when they made dues optional for state workers. Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker reformed labor policy in his state as part of Act 10. The labor reforms allowed state employees to choose whether they wanted to pay union dues when it was passed in 2011. The union membership rate in the state dropped from 14.1  percent to just 9.0 percent by 2016.

But the impact might not be anywhere near that bad. Federal employees already have the right not to pay union dues or fees. But union membership is still fairly high in the federal workforce. Labor unions also exist in every single right-to-work state, where mandatory dues or fees as a condition of employment are banned.

Labor unions have already been facing a decades-long decline in membership rates. Former President Barack Obama argued numerous times during his time in office that unions were critical to protecting workers. His administration implemented numerous regulations to help bolster their membership. President Donald Trump and congressional leaders have begun to roll back some of those reforms.

Follow Connor on Twitter