Nation & World

Supreme Court delivers blow to organized labor in fees dispute

An estimated 5 million non-union workers will no longer have to pay fees

A general view of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington June 8, 2015. REUTERS/Carlos Barria
A general view of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington June 8, 2015. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday dealt a blow to organized labor, ruling that non-members cannot be forced in certain states to pay fees to unions representing public employees such as teachers and police, shutting off a key union revenue source.

On a 5-4 vote powered by the court’s conservative majority, the justices overturned a 1977 Supreme Court precedent that had allowed the so-called agency fees that are collected from millions of non-union workers in lieu of union dues to fund non-political activities like collective bargaining.

The ruling means that the estimated 5 million non-union workers who pay these fees will no longer have to do so.

The court ruled that forcing non-members to pay agency fees to unions whose views they may oppose violates their rights to free speech and free association under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

Writing for the court, conservative Justice Samuel Alito said that while the ruling “may cause unions to experience unpleasant transition costs in the short term” that must be weighed against “how many billions of dollars have been taken from non-members and transferred to public-sector unions in violation of the First Amendment.”

Two dozen states require agency fees, and an estimated 5 million non-union workers for state and local governments pay them. Federal employees and private-sector workers do not.

The four liberal justices dissented, with Justice Elena Kagan writing that conservative justices had given scant regard to the court’s usual way of evaluating when to overturn a long-standing precedent.

ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT

Kagan said the practice of separating union political activities from collective bargaining-related spending, set by the court in the precedent overturned on Wednesday, had been a workable solution.

“There is no sugarcoating today’s opinion. The majority overthrows a decision entrenched in this nation’s law — and in its economic life — for over 40 years. As a result, it prevents the American people, acting through their state and local officials, from making important choices about workplace governance,” Kagan said.

The court’s majority, Kagan said, was “weaponizing the First Amendment” to intervene in economic and regulatory policy.

The decision represented a major victory for conservative activists who long have sought to curb the influence of public sector unions that often support the Democratic Party and liberal causes. It deprives unions of a vital revenue stream, undercuts their ability to attract new members and undermines their ability to spend in political races.

Overturning the high court’s ruling 41 years ago in a case called Abood vs. Detroit Board of Education constitutes a major win for the conservative movement.

Unionized teachers, police, firefighters and other civil servants in states without Republican-backed “right-to-work” laws barring agency fees comprise organized labor’s main power base. Public-sector workers are almost six times more likely to belong to a union than those in the private sector.

Unions have worried that a ruling throwing out the fees would give workers less incentive to join because they would get all the benefits of collective bargaining without having to pay for it. Fearing they would lose the case, unions already are have taken steps to try to shore up membership.

The decision was issued on the final day of the court’s current term, which began in October, and came a day after the justices upheld President Donald Trump’s travel ban targeting several Muslim-majority nations.

‘A BETTER LIFE’

ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT

Thank you for signing up for our e-newsletter!

You should start receiving the e-newsletters within a couple days.

Unions contend that mandatory agency fees are needed to eliminate the problem of what they call “free riders” — non-members who benefit from union representation, for example through salary and working conditions obtained in collective bargaining — without paying for it.

Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO labor federation, said the ruling was a “political stain on what is intended to be the most honorable, independent body in the world.” The ruling would “empower the corporate elites in their efforts to thwart the aspirations of millions of working people standing together for a better life,” Trumka added.

The plaintiff in the case is Mark Janus, a child-support specialist for the state of Illinois who opted not to join the union that represents employees like him, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).

A lower court had ruled against Janus, setting up the Supreme Court showdown.

The justices heard arguments in a similar case in 2016 involving non-union public school teachers in California, and appeared poised to overturn the 1977 precedent. But the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia weeks later left the court with an even split of conservatives and liberals, and its 4-4 decision in March 2016 failed to resolve the legal question.

Republican President Donald Trump’s appointment of Justice Neil Gorsuch last year restored the Supreme Court’s conservative majority, and Gorsuch’s vote proved to be crucial.

Janus was backed in the legal fight by anti-union groups including the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and Liberty Justice Center. Janus has said he is not a member of a political party and his objection to the fees was not based on politics. Janus had been forced to pay just under $50 a month in agency fees since starting his current stint working for Illinois in 2007.

AFSCME and other public-sector unions have called the case a well-funded attack by corporations and billionaires to undermine organized labor.

Give us feedback

We value your trust and work hard to provide fair, accurate coverage. If you have found an error or omission in our reporting, tell us here.

Or if you have a story idea we should look into? Tell us here.

CONTINUE READING

Give us feedback

We value your trust and work hard to provide fair, accurate coverage. If you have found an error or omission in our reporting, tell us here.

Or if you have a story idea we should look into? Tell us here.