Enter your keyword


Labor Clout Takes A Hit In Supreme Court Ruling On Dues

Labor Clout Takes A Hit In Supreme Court Ruling On Dues

On its final day in session of its 2017-2018 term, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that will hurt public sector unions in the pocketbook, and deal a blow to labor’s clout in the political arena.

In the case of Janus v. AFSCME, the court ruled, in a 5-4 vote with conservatives winning out, that government employee unions cannot require represented workers to pay a cent in union dues or fees.

It’s a decision that could cost labor unions tens of millions of dollars — depending on how many workers simply decide that they’d rather have that money in their paycheck, rather than pay it to a labor organization. And they can make that decision and still live and work under contracts negotiated by unions providing pay levels and benefits packages. And while it’s impossible to predict what the impact will be on any given labor union, it seems a certainty that every one of them will see some financial hit.

The case affects a large swath of employees in America: police and firefighters, teachers, public health workers, municipal employees and many, many others. The case is also significant because the public sector has a high rate of unionization — representing more than a third of all such workers in 2017. (That compares to just 6.5 percent of private sector jobs that were union during the same timeframe.)

So Janus potentially gets right at one of the real strengths of the otherwise battered American labor movement.

Among those celebrating the ruling is Americans for Prosperity, the Koch brothers-funded group that’s been part of a major national effort to enact laws limiting labor’s ability to automatically collect dues from workers in union-represented jobs.

AFP senior policy fellow Akash Chougule argues that the ruling isn’t anti-union. “If you like your union you can keep your union,” he says, “What we’re saying and, again, what the court made clear, is you simply cannot force workers against their will to fund their union.”

Prior to this week’s ruling, government employees already had the right to not pay anything to fund the union’s political activity — but they were required to pay to the union something called an “agency fee” to cover costs of negotiating contracts that they benefited from. Under the Janus decision, that requirement is gone. No contribution to the union is required whatsoever for government workers nationwide.

University of California, Berkeley labor specialist Harley Shaiken says Janus is meant to weaken unions “and it will likely do just that.”

It’s hard to forecast what the impact will be for any given union. But labor will be up against the following dynamic: Employees who don’t like unions can be expected to opt out and take the cash, but this could also tempt those simply ambivalent about being in a union to opt out. The single largest public sector union in the U.S. is the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, better known as AFSCME. Its president, Lee Saunders, says of Janus, “You know, it’s hard to take,” before adding, “We’re gonna have to make some adjustments, but this is an opportunity for us.”

No Comments

Add your review

Your email address will not be published.