Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

The beginning of the end?

Posted in:

Illinois

The Supreme Court appeared ready Monday to bar public sector unions from collecting “fair share” fees from non-members, a move that could reduce union membership drastically and drain union coffers.

At oral argument Monday in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, four justices appeared skeptical of the court’s own holding in the 1977 Abood decision, which ruled the fees constitutional. Under current law, public employees covered by union contracts may opt out of paying any fees toward the political activity of their union. But states may pass laws that require those dissenting members to pay a fee to cover their portion of collective bargaining costs. Such provisions, on the books in about two dozen states, are being challenged in the case by Rebecca Friedrichs and eight other California teachers. […]

The conservative swing vote in Friedrichs, somewhat surprisingly, is Justice Antonin Scalia, who has supported fair share fees in past decisions. But in Monday’s oral arguments he seemed sympathetic to the plaintiffs. “The problem is that it is not the same as [in] the private sector,” he said, adding that the issue “may require a rule change.” […]

The central question of the case is whether collective bargaining is an inherently political activity. The Friedrichs teachers say it is, and argue that it’s a violation of their First Amendment rights to make them pay for it. At Monday’s arguments, Scalia appeared to agree with this premise. “Everything that is collectively bargained with the government is within the political sphere,” he said.

Thanks to a commenter for the link.

And the New York Times agrees.

Discuss amongst yourselves.

posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 12:18 pm

Comments

Unless there’s an “unforeseen” change like with ACA and the Chief Justice voting as he did…

… this is more than likely, “the end”

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 12:21 pm
I’m sure I’m oversimplifying/being ignorant but I don’t see how 1st Amendment rights are trampled with fair share requirements when you no one forces you to take a union job. This woman was in her own Union labor board and eventually soured on the Union.

Comment by Politix Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 12:29 pm
Following the money in this case will tell you far more than the issues being debated.

Comment by AC Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 12:30 pm
If the fair share dollars count as political activity, then everything that involves any spending ever is political activity. You can cast that net as wide as you want, but if we’re talking raw economics, anything that involves a social benefit can be considered political activity if you’re unwilling to establish a reasonable limit.

Comment by Anon Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 12:34 pm
I don’t agree with how all my tax money is used so I should now be allowed to free ride…

Forcing me to pay for bombing other countries violates my free speech right to not want to support that with my tax money…

If it’s good enough for union freeloaders it is now good enough for the rest of us…

Comment by There is power in a union... Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 12:34 pm
You don’t eat an elephant in one bite. This will slowly take a few bites out of the corrupt bargain’s hide.

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 12:35 pm
How can the union be forced to represent employees that opt out? Shouldn’t those employees have to negotiate salary and benefit on their own?

Comment by Johnny Pyle Driver Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 12:37 pm
I was never a big fan of Fair Share Contributions from the beginning, but because non-members benefit generally from the results of CBAs, there should be some modest amount contributed to the union. The greater issue I have with union dues or Fair Share Contributions more generally is the lack of input/control those paying have over what is done with the money in the name of political activism. Using contributions for CBAs is one thing…to fund political campaigns is something else and does potentially infringe on First Amendment rights.

Comment by Commonsense in Illinois Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 12:39 pm
JP, by law we have to represent all the same.

As a steward I have to work just as hard for the fair share as I do for the full members. Or I can get my local a ULP.

And I will say in my experience that the fair share are often far more frequent customers of union services such as grievances and discipline defense…

Comment by There is power in a union... Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 12:41 pm
Common sense, our dues can’t go to politics. For state workers that is a separate voluntary dues deduction.

Comment by There is power in a union... Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 12:42 pm
Thanks…did not know that.

Comment by Commonsense in Illinois Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 12:46 pm
If SCOTUS rules against the unions on this one, Rauner can claim victory on Right To Work and agree to a budget!

Comment by Johnny Justice Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 12:48 pm
Fair Share seems pretty fair to me. People should be able to opt out of political operations that go against their beliefs. But benefitting from the union’s efforts seems like an unjust enrichment. Not sure how it works in reality, but seems to be a reasonable compromise on the surface.

Comment by Junior Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 12:49 pm
I’m resigned to the continued erosion of the middle class and the increase in power to the Rauners of the world. I expect President Cruz to gleefully take away healthcare from 19 million. The lack of a strike fund plus this likely ruling will be the end of AFSCME.

Comment by Anotherretiree Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 12:49 pm
@there is:

I agree. My First Amendment rights are being violated because many large corporations lobby against my best interests. And its not like I can do down the street at and get a cell phone and plan at Rich’s Cell Phone company. Guess its time for the Supreme Court to rule on this too.

Oh, and while I’m at it. I’m a non gun owner, what exactly are MY Second Amendment rights? Or do I just have to play along with the pretend police and hopefully I dont get killed in the crossfire.

Comment by Jack Stephens Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 12:50 pm
Right to work..whatever that means…it’s over for unions…

Comment by Loop Lady Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 12:51 pm
Thus we become a right to work nation. Income disparity will increase.

Comment by Norseman Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 12:52 pm
And, hey, they aren’t seeking it just for the “corrupt bargain” in the public sector world.

The Lincolnshire RTW ordinance specifically regards *only* private sector unions. They’re already moving on to phase two of the plan.

Comment by Sam Weinberg Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 12:52 pm
Anyone who makes predictions of what the court will do based on the behavior of the justices at oral arguments is crazy. Justices often ask hard questions that appear contrary to their actual leanings. The most plausible explanation I’ve heard is that they do so in order to see if the party they favor can give them a good response in case the other justices raise the question when they debate the case amongst themselves. And, of course, Justice Thomas never says anything.

Comment by Anon. Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 12:53 pm
It would appear from the above analysis that Scalia is looking for any reason he can to justify ruling against union ‘fair share’ dues.

I do not buy the argument of the ‘political sphere’ as a constitutional reason to base such a decision. But then again judges often look for dubious reasons to justify their decision. The overuse of the 14th Amendment under ‘equal protection of the laws’ is a prime example when the 14th was designed to ensure that freed Blacks would have citizenship and somehow it was used in Phlyer vs. Doe to say that illegal aliens had the right to public schools (along with many other decisions) So yes, both sides do this constitutional language acrobatics.

However I do not believe in fair share and believe that Friedrichs is correct. One should not have to join a union. Having said that, they should not receive any benefits or protection from the union either. They are on their own!

FYI I was a member of SEIU for 4 years and AFT for 29 years. I strongly support unions and was on a number of negotiating teams.

Comment by Federalist Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 12:54 pm
“As a steward I have to work just as hard for the fair share as I do for the full members. Or I can get my local a ULP.”

I’ve done the same thing.

This will be the end of public service unions. Too many freeloaders out there that will be more than happy to take the benefits negotiated by the union negotiators and sit back and not pay a dime. The end result will also be the rebirth of patronage and all that it stands for..

Comment by Mouthy Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 12:55 pm
You can try to guess how justices will vote based on their questions but you never can be sure. Sometimes the justices that take the lead in questioning aren’t always reflecting their opinions in their questions. You just never know.

We’ll have to see how the court ends up voting … and we may not know it for a while.

Comment by RNUG Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 12:55 pm
Collective bargaining is a representation of Citizen’s right of assembly (form a union) for redress of grievances (low pay, weird hours, low benefits, … ). The employees of business (gov department), i.e., Citizens of department, VOTE by secret ballot with MAJORITY votes allowing union representation, i.e forming a new city. The ELECTED union representatives prepare and implement programs (contracts, contributions, …). Because EVERY member of community (employee group) had EQUAL VOTE in the ELECTED council - the democratic process obliges each member to abide by the elected council.
Apply the same arguments to cities, countries, states. Since my city is GOP dominated, my free speech is being harmed because they implement GOP ideology. Thus, I need NOT pay any fees, taxes, or ordinances implemented by a GOP controlled council.

Comment by IL17 Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 12:56 pm
== How can the union be forced to represent employees that opt out? ==

Because, right now, the law says they must … and the “fair share” portion of the union dues is supposed to pay the union for doing so.

I’m okay with requiring the union to represent everyone in the bargaining unit but I may have a issue with the percentage since the unions have consistently refused to open their books to an independent analysis of how much the representative actions cost.

Comment by RNUG Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 1:00 pm
Does the union define the members or do the members define the union? Does her union not allow her and other members to shape their legislative agendas based on their wishes?

Comment by George OhWell Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 1:00 pm
The Lincolnshire RTW ordinance is based on a statutory challenge to Labor Relations Act, which typically only applies to private sector workers.

The Friedrichs case is based on a constitutional challenge on first amen grounds. Since the teacher is required to pay dues to a union that speaks on her behalf, it amounts to compelled speech. Paying the dues is a required condition of employment, so the government is violating her first amendment rights.

At least that’s what the petitioners are arguing.

Comment by NixonHead Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 1:03 pm
If the Supreme Court bars union’s from collecting fair share fees, then why should worker’s be permitted to benefit from the efforts of a union while not making any financial contribution? Are there changes that could be made so that non union worker’s are on their own and don’t benefit from union negotiations and services?

Comment by Former Hoosier Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 1:03 pm
== Does the union define the members or do the members define the union? ==

In theory, the members define the union through their votes for their union reps, etc. Practice can often be different than theory.

Comment by RNUG Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 1:04 pm
If required fair share is abolished shouldn’t the union be absolved of the responsibility to support non-union employees in the form of a rule/law change?

Comment by JS Mill Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 1:04 pm
If fair share is determined to be a violation of free speech, could the SC rule that if a worker opts out of fair share, the union can opt out of being forced to negotiate or represent the individual employee?

Comment by Johnnie F. Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 1:05 pm
= If SCOTUS rules against the unions on this one, Rauner can claim victory on Right To Work and agree to a budget! =

Since we probably won’t see a decision on this until June, that timing might be accurate. Or optimistic.

Comment by Archiesmom Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 1:06 pm
There is a fundamental difference between requiring people to pay taxes to the government and requiring people to pay agency fees to a private organization. I can think of no other instance where we force individuals to financially support a private entity as a condition of employment. Maybe physicians or others who have to pay fees to AMA or others for licenses? That’s as close as I can get.

There is a real issue here that is not easy to separate. For example, should decisions about laying off teachers be based on seniority or performance? I would expect every resident of the school district to have an opinion on this, so it is clearly a political issue affecting taxes, property values, etc. On the other hand, it is also clearly a condition of employment. There is something to the argument that politics and employment conditions may be inseparable.

On the other hand, there is merit to the free riding argument. If unions are required by law to represent even non-members, non-members should be required by law to pay for those services.

It seems that the only solution may be to get rid of the mandatory agency fees and the duty to represent non-members. That will create a mess for unions and government employers (which is the origin of the original “labor peace” argument underlying Abood), but it may be all that is left if SCOTUS goes the way people expect.

Comment by Mostly Harmless Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 1:12 pm
The ultimate grand bargain would be that if you don’t pay fair share fees, you don’t get representation. There’s a well known labor attorney from Chicago (Geoghegan I think) that actually proposed this idea. Labor was against it if I recall.

Comment by NixonHead Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 1:13 pm
There is a problem with the argument that unions shouldn’t have to represent bargaining unit employees that aren’t paying dues. If enacted then that means that if I have a cousin, a lady friend, friendly political worker, etc. an employer can assign them easier work and can pay them through the roof. That’s patronage folks and it’s been around before..

Comment by Mouthy Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 1:16 pm
“- NixonHead - Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 1:13 pm:

The ultimate grand bargain would be that if you don’t pay fair share fees, you don’t get representation. There’s a well known labor attorney from Chicago (Geoghegan I think) that actually proposed this idea. Labor was against it if I recall.”

NixonHead reinforces my point that this wouldn’t be a plus for the unions..

Comment by Mouthy Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 1:19 pm
It is not a matter of free speech it is a matter of freeloading. If they don’t have to pay a fair share let them become independent contractor and negotiate on their own. Start with negotiating own salary vacation and benefits and do not piggyback on the union work

Comment by DuPage Saint Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 1:20 pm
Maybe I’m just being naïve but I don’t fear the result of Friedrichs. I welcome it. No longer will I have to abide by certain people being in fellowship. As I have said before wheat from the chaf. It will be nice to not have that 40% working against our best interests. Will it hurt? Sure. But I much rather have it this way. Purification is sometimes a good thing.

Comment by Honeybear Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 1:20 pm
===Purification is sometimes a good thing. ===

Every entity that has tried that has failed. Democratic Party, Republican Party, Catholic Church, you name it. Bigger and more inclusive is better.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 1:23 pm
- Honeybear -

The very last thing you want it a “purity” purge.

It would take decades for Labor to recover.

Anytime you look at “less is more and more pure” there won’t be enough of you left to matter.

With respect.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 1:28 pm
Honeybear, the problem with that 40% would be that the other 60% would now be subsidizing their representation, which would eliminate a lot of things that the union currently does, like public education or political activity. Cut the revenue of any entity by 40% and it becomes immensely strained to provide services.

Comment by Man with a plan Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 1:31 pm
If a union worker gets a $40,000. a year job with two weeks vacation, and works 40 hours and somebody comes in and wants to be nonunion and “negotiate” their own benefits and gets $60,000 a year with 3 weeks vacation, and only has to work a 35 hour week you can see the problem with not being part of the union. Many of you are assuming an employee will do worse than negotiating on their own. How will the employer explain it you ask? He’ll just change the job title and make it sound much more difficult…

Comment by Mouthy Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 1:32 pm
The law absolutely does not require that unions represent anyone other than their members. Members only contracts are perfectly legal; if the union wants this type of contract, they can simply relinquish their exclusive representation status.

Unions choose to represent non-members of their own free will. The law has allowed them to bid members only contracts since at least the 1930s. They simply can’t bargain for unfair stipulations like lower wages for non-members.

No matter how many times this blog and its regular commenters repeat this lie, it doesn’t become anymore true.

Comment by Jack Kemp Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 1:36 pm
==I may have a issue with the percentage since the unions have consistently refused to open their books to an independent analysis of how much the representative actions cost.==

RNUG, your posts on pension reform were prophetic, do you think something other than a complete win or lose is possible in this case? That is, could the court mandate the kind of analysis you suggest, and use that to determine fair share fees?

Comment by AC Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 1:36 pm
all the benefits with no money paid. that is the issue. training, negotiations, those things are important and come from union dues too. perhaps those who don’t pay in should not reap the benefits.

Comment by Amalia Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 1:45 pm
This will make AFSCME less likely to compromise, not more likely to compromise.

I can only imagine the havoc for school districts.

Comment by Juvenal Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 1:51 pm
==There is a fundamental difference between requiring people to pay taxes to the government and requiring people to pay agency fees to a private organization. I can think of no other instance where we force individuals to financially support a private entity as a condition of employment.==

Homeowners associations are somewhat analogous. They are private entities that even have the power to foreclose on detached private homes over unpaid dues, even if the owners don’t use the amenities provided by the HOA. Many homeowners associations engage in political speech, and even pay CAI, a lobbying group, in favor of laws which expand HOA power. Members of the HOA may not agree with this speech, but lack the ability to opt out of that use of their dues, unlike union members. With collectively owned resources, they would have the same free rider problem if some homeowners didn’t pay. The difference is that homeowners opposing HOA political speech haven’t had wealthy advocates supposedly concerned about free speech but probably more concerned with the politics.

Comment by AC Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 1:53 pm
- Jack Kemp - Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 1:36 pm:
It’s not that simple Jack:

http://prospect.org/article/labor-crossroads-defense-members-only-unionism
http://onlabor.org/tag/members-only-unions/

Comment by Mouthy Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 1:53 pm
Look at the committee slips. The public unions in Illinois supported being forced to represent non-members. This is a mess of their own making. Labor is better off focusing on their 100% union campaign to absorb the blow. Will be interesting to see if they pull the shenanigans that MEA did up in Michigan after their Right to Work law passed making it hard/impossible for people to opt out.

Comment by Trydge Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 1:53 pm
Jack Kemp - that is incorrect. Neither the National nor Illinois State Labor Relations Boards will certify a bargaining unit that includes only those who support a union. It is unlawful for a union to discriminate against a worker because of their membership (or lack thereof) in a union. It is called the Duty of Fair Representation, and it exists to protect the rights of workers who choose not to be members.

Comment by Man with a plan Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 1:55 pm
If the Supreme Court allows the change, certainly it will hurt public sector unions. But, Illinois has a strong tradition with wide support for them . I don’t think public sector unions are going away anytime soon in Illinois.

Comment by Steve Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 1:58 pm
@Steve - Going away? No. Just neutered as a dominant political force like the public unions in indiana and wisconsin before them.

Comment by hisgirlfriday Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 2:04 pm
If the NY Times article is correct in that Scalia is the swing vote I’m afraid the unions have lost. Think of that, union fate rides on Scalia. SCALIA! Union goose as good as cooked.

Comment by Anon2U Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 2:05 pm
Unions have a monopoly over labor costs at public entities they represent. Monopolies have been generally ruled illegal in most circumstances. Why should labor be treated differently.

Comment by Apocaplypse Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 2:08 pm
== RNUG, your posts on pension reform were prophetic ==

It may have seemed prophetic, but the IL Pension Clause language was pretty clear and the history of IL SC rulings was pretty consistent. Plain old logic dictated the likely SB-1 result. Same for Kanerva, although I was about 70/30 on that because previous rulings weren’t quite as clear cut on the definition of benefits.

Unlike Kanerva and SB-1, I haven’t read all the arguments and I don’t know any of the parties involved. So I’m only partially informed. And past rulings have kind of wavered back and forth, so there isn’t a crystal clear precedent. This one I would just be guessing on. However, I’m pretty sure it will be one of those 5-4 rulings …

It’s a pretty subtle point of law being argued. I think it’s going to come down to a judgement call on which is the greater good, free speech rights of some individuals weighed against the right of free assembly / association and the right of that collective to petition the government. And that means, rightly or wrongly, the political philosophy of each of the justices will be in play.

Personally, I think the right(s) of the union should prevail since we would presume the majority of the members (usually) voted to form the union,and elected their leaders. The dissident members, while required to be “fair share” union “members”, are not required to be employed by the governmental entity … so they are not precluded from pursuing their profession by being forced to be a “fair share” member; they could always find a non-governmental job. Choosing to work at a government run school comes with the need to be “fair share”, so I would argue they freely made that choice to (limited) surrender of their free speech right.

But that’s just my opinion …

Comment by RNUG Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 2:09 pm
Jack Kemp - that is incorrect. Neither the National nor Illinois State Labor Relations Boards will certify a bargaining unit that includes only those who support a union. It is unlawful for a union to discriminate against a worker because of their membership (or lack thereof) in a union. It is called the Duty of Fair Representation, and it exists to protect the rights of workers who choose not to be members

Correct! laws have been changed before and this can be changed as well. Yea, I know the politics on both sides often void any notion of common sense.

Comment by Federalist Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 2:11 pm
@ Jack Kemp is correct. Unions will have you believe that they’re forced to do something they don’t want to do when they have have exclusive representation status. However, they prefer to have that status so they don’t have to compete with other labor org’s for members.

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 2:11 pm
“All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.” - FDR

The sooner the private sector unions re-focus on their own and away from alignment with public sector unions, the better; especially for taxpayers.

Comment by Georg Sande Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 2:11 pm
Okay, learner moment, purification was not the right word. Typing fast, thinking slow. My bad.

-Every entity that has tried that has failed. Democratic Party, Republican Party, Catholic Church, you name it. Bigger and more inclusive is better.-

Yes, I agree with the first sentence but these were entities purging internally. People going fairshare is THEIR choice. So really I should be using terms like “self-selecting” or “opting out” which shows the agency with the individual. And I think this is good. Self select/opt out fine. They don’t want to be included. What failed is trying to included people who didn’t want to be included. They lost consent. I get it. Trust me, I’m Unitarian Universalist. There is nothing more horrifying to hear myself say that diversity failed and that inclusion and fair share failed. Let them go. I think we’ll be more cohesive (better word than pure) and integrated. Cultural hegemony is easier that way. (sorry, I couldn’t help using a Marxist term. Just messin with you all) My apologies again for using really strong terms. You all know how I get.

Comment by Honeybear Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 2:13 pm
Perhaps the underlying problem is that unions have been failing to serve their memberships effectively. Look at the private sector union decline over the last 3 decades. 7% or so employees are still in pvt sector unions nationally.
The unions appear to have clung to a outmoded business model. One would think that if they offered value or a clear benefit of membership, they would still be viable.
Should the SCOTUS ruling go against public sector unions and they lose their only meal ticket - coerced membership, then yep, it will likely be their demise.

Comment by Nick Danger Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 2:18 pm
===coerced membership===

You must’ve missed the news a while back that 1,000 or so “fair share” members became full-fledged AFSCME members here after Rauner was elected. Quite a large percentage.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 2:21 pm
In the letter, Roosevelt also says: “Organizations of Government employees have a logical place in Government affairs. The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry.”

Comment by Enviro Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 2:26 pm
==The sooner the private sector unions re-focus on their own and away from alignment with public sector unions, the better; especially for taxpayers.==

Some taxpayers, probably the 1%.

If unionized, government employees aren’t taxpayers, I think they’re guilty of tax fraud.

Comment by AC Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 2:26 pm
Even the Abood decision acknowledged that the fair-share/agency shop idea infringed at least moderately on the freedom of expression of people who didn’t want anything to do with the union. The petitioners in this case are just arguing that the infringement is a big deal because Freidrichs fundamentally disagrees with some of the teacher union stuff like seniority, higher wages paid by taxes, etc.

Comment by NixonHead Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 2:28 pm
You want the union to continue to be forced to represent. Otherwise management gives better pay to those who opt out until eventually the unit is dissolved. Not so different from what you see in organizing drives.

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 2:29 pm
-Perhaps the underlying problem is that unions have been failing to serve their memberships-

True 100% true. That’s why when I went to my most recent activist training is was all about 1 on 1 communication and meeting needs. Yep, our local had become kind of an old boys club, with golf outings and privilege. New leadership has brought in a new day. It’s food pantry contributions and being good community members now. We’re engaging our membership like never before. But you’re exactly right, we lost touch with our folks. We’re strong enough to admit that now and work hard to correct it. It’s part of why there are only about 36 fairshares now in my local of 889.

Comment by Honeybear Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 2:29 pm
I marvel at the right-wing Federalist Soc. legal fantasy bubble that members of the Supreme Court have validated–that the 2nd Amend means an individual right to a firearm; that corporations have 1st Amend speech rights; and now that somehow collective bargaining is somehow coerced speech b/c what a government compensates its employees is a political act. Alice through the Looking Glass needs to be taught in law school henceforth…and people used to laugh when Justice Douglas argued that trees had standing!

Comment by D.P.Gumby Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 2:39 pm
–It would take decades for Labor to recover.–

I see this stage as part of the recovery. I think the recovery is happening now and thus a reformation is happening. Sorry as former clergy it’s hard not to use religious terms or ideas. But I see this as part of the Reformation of Labor. And like the Protestant Reformation there are going to be a lot of pains in it’s reformation. Thus I don’t see this self-selection as bad thing. People are gravitating towards their people. To be wicked about it, Trump is attracting a certain type of person to his campaign. That’s a good thing for those people to feel validated by his views. I don’t agree with it but there you have the democratic spirit. I think union ideals will see a resurgence following the Freidrichs decision being nailed up on the doors. Catholicism didn’t die after the reformation. It changed itself. I see the same happening to Labor.

Comment by Honeybear Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 2:52 pm
Folks, I hate to inform you, but union membership is declining nationally at such an alarming rate that this decision may only be prolonging the inevitable.

Comment by Blue dog dem Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 3:14 pm
The pendulum is swinging in a direction that wants to hurt working people and take their voice away from them. This is a swing to a backwards time in our history. Fast forward in time and workers will rise again to reclaim rights and a voice, I have to assume. Cyclical. Right now we’re going back to the time of the robber barons.

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 3:15 pm
Fair share is commensurate with taxes, union dues and “fair share” contributions benefit all employees. Why is not requiring fair share deductions even being considered?

Comment by WETHEPEOPLE Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 3:16 pm
Boy, oh boy… The things people believe. It’s draining reading some of these words.

Here it is, in a nutshell.

1.) Federal Labor law states that a union must represent all employees, regardless of their union affiliation (International Assn. of Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740, 761 (1961)and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Management_Relations_Act_of_1947)

2.) Employees are free to NOT join the Union

3.) But, union has a right to collect a “fair share” for representing people they are forced to represent. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abood_v._Detroit_Board_of_Education)

The Abood decision is the one being challenged now.

If Abood is overturned, it will mean that a union HAS to represent everyone at a particular GOVERNMENT work-place, but it doesn’t have to receive compensation for that representation.

It will truly be a race to the bottom and the “spoils system” of public employment will return. We will Tammany Hall revisited.

Comment by Try-4-Truth Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 3:16 pm
“You must’ve missed the news a while back that 1,000 or so “fair share” members became full-fledged AFSCME members…” No, I saw that. I was referring to the broader spectrum of unions, nationally, not just here in IL. 1,000 transitioning from fair share to full-payers is significant but only for state-employees in IL. I get that unions serve a real and important purpose for workers, my point is those in control got lazy and allowed the “you got to be in the union to work here” rule to do the heavy lifting. Again, speaking broadly.

Comment by Nick Danger Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 3:24 pm
@Jack Kemp
I work in personnel and you are wrong. Oral and written contracts cannot be promised by a public official unless designated by law, doing so is automatically against public policy. Unions have to represent non-members that’s in both public and private sectors. The NLRA was created to protect the rights of employees and employers, to encourage collective bargaining, and to curtail unfair labor and management practices, which can harm interstate commerce. Now, how many times do you have to publish false information on this blog?

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 3:27 pm
Mr. Nick Danger,

Again, the union has no choice but to represent all of the employees. Please see my post above.

Comment by Try-4-Truth Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 3:30 pm
Does anyone know when SCOTUSblog or Oyez will post the audio of the oral arguments for this case online?

Comment by NixonHead Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 3:37 pm
“This will be the end of public service unions…”

Why?
If being a member of the union is such a good deal, obviously, it should be easy to persuade non members to join. But if non members don’t believe in the union cause and can’t be convinced of membership’s worth to them, they should not be compelled to join. The union will have to work harder to persuade the slow learners of the obvious value of membership.

Comment by CapnCrunch Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 3:40 pm
No, I am absolutely not wrong. The Supreme Court expressly upheld a union’s ability to negotiate only on behalf of its members in Consolidated Edison v. National Labor Relations Board 305 U.S. 197 (1938)

As Justice Brennan wrote in Retail Clerks v. Dry Lion Goods 369 U.S. 17 (1962): “‘Members only’ contracts have long been recognized. William Gould, chairman on the NLRB under Clinton wrote the same in his “Agenda for Reform”: “The Ls now permits ‘members-only’ bargaining for employees without regard to majority rule.”

The notion that unions are forced to represent non-members is very simply, and quite demonstrably, false.

Comment by Jack Kemp Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 3:45 pm
So many good public sector employees get drug down by the hacks. Been there, done that, saw the movie read the book. Many a good teacher etc would could make a better living if they were allowed to negotiate on their own. Trade unions are providing skilled training etc to quality folks, public service not so much. Sorry to be mr obvious.

Comment by Back In 1982 Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 3:58 pm
I think it is important to note that there was not a dissent in Abood. It was a 9-0 decision. Unanimous. Let that sink in…

Rehnquist agreed with the opinion (he joined in part of the majority opinion and wrote a concurrence as well). I understand that courts sometimes overturn themselves, but Justices often speak highly off stare decisis (not overturning previous court decisions). What fundamental things have changed since 1977 that would justify overturning Abood? I don’t think anything, except some Justices disagree with the decision.

If Clinton is elected and a justice in the majority retires, Would the court reverse itself again in a couple years?

Comment by My button is broke... Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 4:12 pm
I am definitely pro Union. The unions are an integral part of checks and balances. Having said that, fair share has reduced some unions, AFT comes to mind, as nothing more than dues collectors. They use volunteer teachers in negotiations and grievance while the fat cats scoop up the cash at headquarters. Do away with fair share and make these people work for their money. When they finally start doing the job, Rauner and company will rue the day and wish for fair share.

Comment by ottawa otter Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 4:47 pm
If SCOTUS rules against fair share, could that simply mean that employees could opt out of dues (i.e., it’s no longer compulsory)? I’d happily continue to pay fair share dues- especially if it can continue to be a deduction so I don’t have to write a check or do an online bill pay.

Comment by Eeeeeeniemeenie Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 5:36 pm
Nixon, the transcript has been up for several hours and it’s faster to read than listen.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-915_e2p3.pdf

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 5:38 pm
Per Jack Kemp: Advocating members only contracts would help the unions. Right now most unions are working as majority representation; but by reverting back to members only bargaining would actually help unions and probably should be explored further. By being able to organize the minority-members bargaining unit would be much easier to establish than the majority member bargaining units there are today.

Comment by Paul Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 6:07 pm
I think it’s fairly likely that SCOTUS will hand down a 5-4 decision against the Unions. I’m not ready to say that this is the end of Unions like some are but there will be some very trying days ahead. In the 2016 election the Unions will be fired up like we haven’t seen them in a very long time. It will be interesting to see how large an impact they will have. If the Unions eventually die off, with practically no worker protections in place the gap between the middle class and the wealthy will only widen. It’s possible that through Federal Legislation some worker protections can be passed into law but that won’t happen any time soon with a GOP majority. For all my old friends and every hard working state employee my heart goes out to you. This isn’t the end but it’s going to get rocky for a while.

Comment by The Dude Abides Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 6:13 pm
We decry unnatural monopolies, and generally try to mitigate natural monopolies. Yet in the field of labor, a great many happily accept, or demand, a labor monopoly of bargaining as it increases their relative power (as a company with a monopoly increases its power to bargain for prices from customers). It seems clear that to compel employees to fund a union, when the union cannot readily segregate pure employment bargaining from policy bargaining, should be forbidden. e.g. bargaining for class sizes, or against standardized testing, or against charter schools, or myriad other issues of great political interest that unions also attempt to negotiate as part of an employment contract.

This is an issue unique to public sector unions, where the strength of labor in its particular government unit, a distinct minority of the electorate, can foreclose the political process by effecting policy via employment contracts. Perhaps the best solution in the public sector, both for the interests of individuals and the public at large, is to embrace competition, not monopoly. End the concept of mandatory collective bargaining for all employees. No free riding, as employee contracts only apply to the individuals, or members of the unions (yes, potentially plural), negotiating. Unions could compete with one another, deriving advantage from reduced political agitation, better employment agreements and relations, reduced fees to reach agreements. Highly skilled and highly sought individuals could negotiate their own, superior agreements.

Comment by Joseph Lochner Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 6:41 pm
I could be wrong but the biggest threat to public sector unions may be the Cadillac Tax in ObamaCare. Eventually , the tax will encourage many governmental entities to dump union members into ObamaCare exchanges. At that point, many union members may feel be being in a union isn’t worth it.

Comment by Steve Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 7:08 pm
if the Supreme Court rules for the Plaintiffs, the result will have unintended effects.

First: every public employer will have two classes of employees (1) union due paying employees and (2) “freeloaders.” Those who choose not to pay will be known to all and ostracized.

Secondly: there are many cultural/social rural republicans who are Union members. It will be harder for them to stay Republican, or it will cause a split in th party (see Donald Trump)

Third: this will cause unions to adapt, react, modernize, become more efficient to work for their dues. It’s easier to destroy unions when they are/were slovenly and corrupt.

Comment by Merica Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 7:27 pm
Just finished reading the transcript. Nothing I read changes my opinions expressed at 12:55 pm and 2:09 pm. I still don’t have a clue which way it will go other than all the questioning and discussion about precedent indicates the court is concerned about completely overturning Abood. Even with the previous implied invitation, I’m not sure they are ready to do that yet.

And I don’t see any easy path to just a refinement on the fees. I’m not sure the unions would accept opening their books to independent audit as a prelude to establishing equitable “fair share” fees and I doubt the plaintiffs would accept that end result. Although the court might try to find a path to that kind of compromise.

As an aside, I got a chuckle out of the Rutan reference.

Comment by RNUG Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 8:22 pm
Where are all the conservatives arguing against an activist court and a court that will take legislative power from the states?

Comment by Dr X Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 8:39 pm
Steve, fwiw the most recent Fed budget deal postponed the Cadillac Tax enactment for two more years and a number of DC observers are doubtful that it will ever be implemented.
For Illinois, that takes away one of the Raunerbot talking points justifying the huge cuts to the State employees’/retirees’
“Platinum” (their word) health plan.

Comment by Arthur Andersen Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 9:47 pm
But wait a minute. As a shareholder I receive a lower dividend because of the political contributions of my corporation. Doesn’t that then violate my First Amendment rights? Be careful: I don’t think you can argue that my stock ownership is voluntary unless you are willing to argue that a worker volunteers to pay fair share just by taking a job.

More to the point: An act of incorporation granted to a corporation forces all workers to bargain with the shareholders only in their collective corporate form. Without that artificial government privilege of incorporation, a worker could cut a side deal with any of the partners.

So what’s good for the goose . . . let’s pass a law requiring all corporations to bargain with a similarly collective body, the body corporate of workers, a.k.a. a Union. If you don’t want to avoid the mandatory union that results, you can renounce our act of incorporation and lose the government privileges that come with it: entity status, limited liability, tax provisions, privacy provisions, shielding from personal lawsuits against corporate managers, etc. etc. etc.

Comment by History Prof Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 9:50 pm
I believe there may be a change, but it will not end what the union stands for. The U.S.S.C. decision on fair share fees will not disband the public unions. It will not take away their bargaining powers.

Comment by Mama Monday, Jan 11, 16 @ 10:02 pm