Union Blues

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who ended union protection agreements in Wisconsin.

Earlier today, I came across a very interesting article from The Washington Post concerning the case Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, which the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on February 26. This case, and the court's ruling on it, is expected to be of landmark proportions, and easily the single biggest ruling since Justice Neil Gorsuch was appointed to the bench by President Trump.

Background

In case you're not familiar with the issue at hand, let me give you a quick primer:

In 1977, the Supreme Court ruled that any public sector employee covered by a union contract (not just union members) could be required to pay union fees, provided that the money collected would not be used for "political activities" (Abood vs Detroit Board of Education). 

In essence, this means that if you work for a government agency (such as a school district) that has a collective bargaining agreement with a labor union (such as AFSCME), then you can be legally required to pay union fees whether you're a union member or not (such arrangements are often called "protection agreements"). The only stipulation is that labor unions cannot use money collected via fees from non-members for "political activities", such as funding a politician's election campaign or running a political advertisement.

The thought at the time was that everyone who benefits from the union's collective bargaining efforts, whether union member or not, should contribute to "the pot". Otherwise "freeloaders", or those who would reap the benefits of collective bargaining without paying dues, could potentially bankrupt the labor unions. 

However, in the years since, the line between "political" and "non-political" activity has become increasingly blurred, so much so that public sector employees now argue that it is impossible to make a legal distinction between the two. Even basic union functions like collective bargaining have become highly politicized, as the results of such negotiations can affect taxes and other public policies.

Thus, if union activities such as collective bargaining could be reasonably construed as "political activities", then requiring employees to fund them violates their Right to Free Speech by compelling them to financially support a political cause as a condition of their employment, or so goes the argument put forth by the plaintiff in Janus v. AFSCME.

Impact

 

Should the Court rule against mandatory union dues, the repercussions for public sector labor unions could be devastating. In a recent survey, only 35% of the members of the AFSCME responded that they would definitely pay union dues if not required to do so by law. Labor unions are also aware that union membership plummeted in Wisconsin after Governor Scott Walker (pictured) ended mandatory public sector union fees in the state. If the same were to happen on a national scale, it could be the end of an era for public labor unions.

My Take 

 

I agree with the plaintiff in this case. Compelling employees to pay union membership dues as a condition of employment is inherently unfair. Today, the line between political and non-political activity for organized labor is essentially non-existent, and we're fooling ourselves if we pretend otherwise. Besides, members and non-members don't receive the same benefits. True, there is some overlap in regard to areas like basic compensation, but other benefits such as legal representation are unavailable to non-members; requiring them to pay the same dues without the same benefits is unfair.

Now, that's not to say that I don't understand the union's position. Freeloading isn't very fair either, but like any business, if labor unions want dues-paying members, they should have to market themselves. Imagine a scenario where you have a business that sells a product that the public is forced to buy, no matter what. How much effort are you going to put into marketing that product? How much are you going to invest in its quality? Probably very little, since people are going to be compelled to buy it in any case. This is the kind of gravy train that public sector unions have been riding for decades.

Instead of imposing mandatory fees on everyone by law, unions should be selling benefits like pensions, legal representation, training opportunities, and the like to potential members to win their membership. And while they're at it, they can leave the heavy-handed political activism aside. Don't make workers have to choose between their political beliefs and their jobs, and stick to the original mission of organized labor: Benefiting workers. If pubic sector labor unions can do this effectively, then they deserve to stick around. If not, then their time is up.