U.S. Supreme Court rules non union workers cannot be forced to pay fees to public sector unions

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 today in Janus v. AFSCME that non-union workers cannot be forced to pay fees to public sector unions.

Such fees violate "the free speech rights of nonmembers by compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern."

Attorney Allan Dollison, who recently moved from Humboldt, left this comment on the SCOTUSblog.

Mr. Dollison sent me this analysis on the Janus decision.

"This is the case where public sector unions charge "agency fees" for non-member employees to pay for their representation. Those employees get a benefit, better pay and benefits. The Supreme Court said it violates free speech principles to make employees pay for a union they do not want to join.

The Supreme Court was primed and ready in 2016 to make this same decision in another case from Irvine, CA called Friedrichs v. CA Teachers Assn, but Justice Scalia died after oral arguments but before the decision was issued. Ultimately Friedrichs was decided 4-4, and thus it was not overturned.

The addition of Justice Gorsuch changed that. There is a famous quote about the Supreme Court that the only thing that matters in that building is how to count to 5. Obviously there were many 5-4 decisions this year.

Therefore who got to fill the Scalia seat was of profound importance.

Do local government employees now refuse to pay their agency fees and thus weaken the union and increase the power of the government in the collective bargaining phase?

The key is whether you agree with unions or not, they generally provide a benefit to their members by obtaining better pay and working conditions. Public Sector unions are especially good at that.

This decision will have a pretty big impact, both locally and nationally."

In this article, Rebecca Friedrich is interviewed:

"It was all politics," she said. "I thought my money was going to a labor union to protect me as a worker."

When the recession set in, Friedrichs suggested that teachers take a pay cut to protect younger workers from last-in-first-out layoffs. It was a nonstarter for the union. She felt isolated and criticized for going against the majority.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/the-state-worker/article213492084.html