Fate of public unions may rest with Supreme Court

iStock/Thinkstock(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Monday is hearing a case which public-sector unions say could potentially impact millions of government workers across the country.

The debate centers on a challenge of an Illinois law allowing unions representing government workers to collect fees from those employees who opt not to join. The case arises from a lawsuit by Mark Janus, a state child-support specialist in Illinois, who claims that his First Amendment rights are violated by the state law which also mandates that public employees who decide not to join an employee union pay so-called “fair share fees” to cover a portion of the union’s contract-bargaining costs.

“This is not giving me the freedom of speech or the freedom of association. I am forced to support this union whether I want to or not – that’s the problem.” Janus told ABC News.

Such rules apply in at least 22 states.

Janus said he’s not against unions but wants to have a choice.

“It was just the fact that nobody asked me. It wasn’t a fact that I was given a choice in the matter,” he said. “It was just a mandatory automatic fee. This is not giving me the freedom of speech or the freedom of association.”

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, in court documents, defends the fee structure saying: “These fair-share fees cover those non-members’ proportionate share of the costs associated with the essential collective-bargaining responsibilities outlined above, but exclude other expenses unrelated to those responsibilities. The unions’ representative functions — and the fees that make those functions possible — serve the interests of the public employer and the State or locality that adopts such a labor-relations system.”

Janus disagrees.

“I don’t need to be represented by them I can represent myself.” Janus said in our interview.

When it considered the case in 2016, the Supreme Court was split 4-4. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, who did not weigh in on the case, could potentially prove a pivotal vote.

Given the strong signals that the Supreme Court has sent in recent years, it is almost certain to overrule the 1977 decision, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which allowed local governments to require the so-called “fair share fees” and could also strike Illinois’ requirement, said Steven Schwinn, a constitutional expert and law professor at the John Marshall Law School.

“This will almost certainly deal a serious blow to public-sector unions in all fair share states, especially if they must continue to represent non-members in collective bargaining,” he said. “That’s because without a fair share requirement, public-sector employees in a unionized workplace will have little incentive to pay any union dues at all. Instead, they will be able to ‘free ride’ on the union’s collective-bargaining activities— exactly the problem that Abood addressed. If nobody pays dues, public-sector unions are likely to find themselves very short on resources.”

Still, there is some disagreement as to the likely practical impact of the case, he said.

Supporters of “fair share” fees say that a ruling against them will significant harm public-sector unions and, by extension, public-sector employees.

But opponents note that public-sector unions continue to operate even in states that currently do not require “fair share” fees. They contend that there is no reason to think that unions will not continue to operate even if “fair share” requirements go away.

Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on email
Email
Share on print
Print