How screwed are public sector unions now?

[B-Fly]

Unsurprisingly, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that public sector employees can't be compelled to pay dues to the public sector unions that negotiate collective bargaining agreements on their behalf.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/27/politics/supreme-court-union-fees-decision/index.html

This could be disastrous for those unions. On the other hand, most teachers and police officers I know do value their union's efforts to negotiate for them and may not want to be (or be perceived as) free riders, for reasons both moral and social. Many of them do, however, live paycheck to paycheck and may be tempted to seize any opportunity to increase their take home pay. If they decide not to pay dues, however, I presume the union would be within its rights not to offer them individual representation should they face disciplinary action or wish to file a grievance.

[cardboardbox]

I dont know how it was ever legal to force someone to pay for membership in a club that maybe they dont want to be in.

[B-Fly]

I dont know how it was ever legal to force someone to pay for membership in a club that maybe they dont want to be in.

It was in many states until today's Supreme Court decision. The argument was that you don't have to apply for a public school or police officer or other civil service job, but if you apply and you're in a title that is part of the collective bargaining agreement, such that you benefit from the salary and benefits and other work rights attained for you through collective bargaining by the union, then it is only fair for you to contribute commensurately with all of the others who benefit from that representation.

[Hornsby]

Unsurprisingly, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that public sector employees can't be compelled to pay dues to the public sector unions that negotiate collective bargaining agreements on their behalf.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/27/politics/supreme-court-union-fees-decision/index.html

This could be disastrous for those unions. On the other hand, most teachers and police officers I know do value their union's efforts to negotiate for them and may not want to be (or be perceived as) free riders, for reasons both moral and social. Many of them do, however, live paycheck to paycheck and may be tempted to seize any opportunity to increase their take home pay. If they decide not to pay dues, however, I presume the union would be within its rights not to offer them individual representation should they face disciplinary action or wish to file a grievance.

I suspect that the unions will not represent those who choose not to be members. Really, there's little in it for the union to do so if a non-member tried to get their services...the union as a whole would eventually crumble because people would leave if there was no incentive to pay.

Now what will be interesting is to see how respective public sector entities choose to deal with non-union members. Do they just give them the same benefits as union members? Do they require those people to actually negotiate? Or do they just say "here's your deal, take it or leave it?"

[B-Fly]

Now what will be interesting is to see how respective public sector entities choose to deal with non-union members. Do they just give them the same benefits as union members? Do they require those people to actually negotiate? Or do they just say "here's your deal, take it or leave it?"

Right, that's super tricky. If the public entity can offer lower pay or less expensive benefits to employees who elect not to join the union or contribute, that would presumably generate additional incentive for them to join the union and pay dues. And from a budgeting perspective, can the public entity require a prospective employee to indicate up front whether they intend to join the union and potentially discriminate against union joiners in hiring decisions? And if the public entity so wishes, can they actually offer incentives such as a salary higher than guide, either to entice a preferred candidate with a scarce skillset (e.g., bilingual physics teacher), or to bust the union? Can the public entity assign a non-union teacher to extra hall/lunchroom duty or require him/her to work more after-school or weekend events? Lots of potential variables here.

[Judge Jude]

I dont know how it was ever legal to force someone to pay for membership in a club that maybe they dont want to be in.

this line from Alito's majority opinion will have lawyers nodding and everyone else thinking, "I need a cool cloth and a couch."

“In simple terms, the First Amendment does not permit the government to compel a person to pay for another party’s speech just because the government thinks that the speech furthers the interests of the person who does not want to pay.”

[B-Fly]

this line from Alito's majority opinion will have lawyers nodding and everyone else thinking, "I need a cool cloth and a couch."

“In simple terms, the First Amendment does not permit the government to compel a person to pay for another party’s speech just because the government thinks that the speech furthers the interests of the person who does not want to pay.”

Yeah, I'm a lawyer and I'm shaking my head rather than nodding. Collective bargaining and representation of employees in disciplinary proceedings and grievances isn't mere First Amendment speech. It's a service. It's a service that, depending on state civil service laws, benefits public employees in certain titles regardless of whether they choose to become members or whether they wish to support the union's political activities (including campaign contributions). The Supreme Court is basically saying that the government (including your public employer) can't compel you as a condition of employment in a particular title to pay a fee for the services the union is providing to you. It's already been decided law since 1977 that you can't be compelled to be a union member or support the union's political contributions or speech. What's remarkable about today's decision is that it overturns longstanding Court precedent that had distinguished the negotiations and representation services provided by the unions from speech. And in doing so they're throwing a great many public entities and public employees into a deep unknown. The decision is pretty extreme judicial activism for so-called conservative jurists.

[onejayhawk]

I said it in another thread. Union leadership has feared this outcome for more than 20 years. The economic impact on some unions will be massive. The secondary impact on Democratic party funding will be significant.

A secondary point to this is that Unions have always known this was an Achilles heel. The question has always been how to delay the inevitable.

J

[onejayhawk]

Yeah, I'm a lawyer and I'm shaking my head rather than nodding. Collective bargaining and representation of employees in disciplinary proceedings and grievances isn't mere First Amendment speech. It's a service. It's a service that, depending on state civil service laws, benefits public employees in certain titles regardless of whether they choose to become members or whether they wish to support the union's political activities (including campaign contributions). The Supreme Court is basically saying that the government (including your public employer) can't compel you as a condition of employment in a particular title to pay a fee for the services the union is providing to you. It's already been decided law since 1977 that you can't be compelled to be a union member or support the union's political contributions or speech. What's remarkable about today's decision is that it overturns longstanding Court precedent that had distinguished the negotiations and representation services provided by the unions from speech. And in doing so they're throwing a great many public entities and public employees into a deep unknown. The decision is pretty extreme judicial activism for so-called conservative jurists.

I completely disagree that this is activist. Regressive perhaps, but not activist.

It's a hugely impactful decision but that does not make it an activist decision. It's easy but wrong to equate liberal with active and conservative with passive. Overturning Roe v Wade would not be activist.

J

[Moonlight J]

I wonder how this impacts the professional sports leagues. If a baseball kid doesn't want to pay into the union dues, they'd be crazy because MLBPA is the best union out there of the sports leagues. Then, if they're not in the union, could then they lose the protections afforded to them by the joint agreement, such as being exempt from weed suspensions if they're on the 40-man roster?

[B-Fly]

I wonder how this impacts the professional sports leagues. If a baseball kid doesn't want to pay into the union dues, they'd be crazy because MLBPA is the best union out there of the sports leagues. Then, if they're not in the union, could then they lose the protections afforded to them by the joint agreement, such as being exempt from weed suspensions if they're on the 40-man roster?

I think this ruling impacts only public employees and their unions. Private entities can still presumably choose to be a union shop if they wish to only have to negotiate one omnibus deal.

[chancellor]

Yeah, I'm a lawyer and I'm shaking my head rather than nodding. Collective bargaining and representation of employees in disciplinary proceedings and grievances isn't mere First Amendment speech. It's a service. It's a service that, depending on state civil service laws, benefits public employees in certain titles regardless of whether they choose to become members or whether they wish to support the union's political activities (including campaign contributions). The Supreme Court is basically saying that the government (including your public employer) can't compel you as a condition of employment in a particular title to pay a fee for the services the union is providing to you. It's already been decided law since 1977 that you can't be compelled to be a union member or support the union's political contributions or speech. What's remarkable about today's decision is that it overturns longstanding Court precedent that had distinguished the negotiations and representation services provided by the unions from speech. And in doing so they're throwing a great many public entities and public employees into a deep unknown. The decision is pretty extreme judicial activism for so-called conservative jurists.

Nonsense. This ruling simply compels unions to actually provide value to their members for the fees they collect, rather than forcibly collecting fees for poorly executed services, and using a significant portion of those forcibly collected funds for political purposes many union members disagreed with. The activism was in those who made the original rulings; not in those who corrected the grievous error.

If the unions prove to their members they provide services worth the fees they charge, and increase their transparency, a vast majority of the members will still support the unions. The vast majority of whining about this ruling from union leadership is driven by the fact that they'll now actually be more accountable to the members they serve, which is unsurprising and human nature. Politicians, for the most part, have hated being accountable to those who vote since the beginning of our republic.

[B-Fly]

and using a significant portion of those forcibly collected funds for political purposes many union members disagreed with

I'm pretty sure that under the existing Supreme Court precedent the unions had to be transparent about the breakdown of their total expenditures between (1) political activities and contributions, and (2) costs for negotiations and employee representation, and show that the calculation of the "agency fees" excluded the former.

The plaintiff's argument in this case is that the union's negotiations and employee representation activities are also inherently political (e.g., I may oppose the idea that the union would argue for anything less than termination for a teacher who hit a child or used a racial slur in the classroom, or I may oppose the union's refusal to negotiate merit pay provisions, or I may oppose their refusal to give up "last in, first out" provisions). I don't believe there was any suggestion by the plaintiff or the Court that the mandated agency fees for employees in "included titles" who opted out of union membership and full dues were used for explicit political contributions or political ads/campaigns.

[chancellor]

I'm pretty sure that under the existing Supreme Court precedent the unions had to be transparent about the breakdown of their total expenditures between (1) political activities and contributions, and (2) costs for negotiations and employee representation, and show that the calculation of the "agency fees" excluded the former.

The plaintiff's argument in this case is that the union's negotiations and employee representation activities are also inherently political (e.g., I may oppose the idea that the union would argue for anything less than termination for a teacher who hit a child or used a racial slur in the classroom, or I may oppose the union's refusal to negotiate merit pay provisions, or I may oppose their refusal to give up "last in, first out" provisions). I don't believe there was any suggestion by the plaintiff or the Court that the mandated agency fees for employees in "included titles" who opted out of union membership and full dues were used for explicit political contributions or political ads/campaigns.

I will respectfully disagree, and quote here material from a source that clearly leans left:

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/supreme-court-decision-janus-v-afscme-likely-permanently-weaken-public-ncna851376

Money quote:

The state laws that currently allow public unions to compel non-members to pay agency fees are far from perfect. For example, it can be difficult to separate union political spending from spending on collective bargaining. The idea that we can treat those two types of spending as distinct assumes something that Janus urges us to reject: that spending on collective bargaining isn’t inherently political. The current framework also puts the burden on employees to opt out of union political spending, as opposed to putting the burden on unions to trying to get employees to opt in.

Opinion piece by Jessica Levinson, whose POV is that this was a bad decision, despite the difficulty in separating political spending from collective bargaining and placing the burden of recovering lost wages forcibly collected by the union intended to be spent on causes the member may disagree with.