Supreme Court deals blow to unions, rules against forced fees for government workers
By Bill Mears | Fox News
close
Supreme Court sides with non-union workers in fees case
In a major legal and political defeat for big labor, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Wednesday that state government workers – whether they join the union or not – cannot be forced to pay so-called "fair share" fees to support collective bargaining and other union activities.
The conservative majority said a union's contract negotiations over pay and benefits were inextricably linked with its broader political activities, and concluded workers had a limited constitutional right not to underwrite such "speech."
“This procedure violates the First Amendment and cannot continue,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion. “Neither an agency fee nor any other payment to the union may be deducted from a nonmember’s wages, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay.”
While the current case applies only to public sector employees, the political and financial stakes are potentially huge for the broader American labor union movement, which had been sounding the alarm about the legal fight.
CLICK TO READ THE OPINION
The unions say 5 million government employees in 24 states and the District of Columbia would be affected by this ruling.
The majority overturned the high court's four-decade old precedent dealing with so-called "agency" fees, allowing states to require public employees to pay money supporting collective bargaining and other union activities
The key plaintiff was Mark Janus, an Illinois state employee, who pays about $550 annually to the powerful public-sector union known as AFSCME. While not a member of the union, he is required under state law to hand over a weekly portion of his paycheck -- which he says is a violation of his constitutional rights.
"I work for Health and Family Services, and I'm forced to pay money to a union that then supports political causes that I don't agree with," Janus told Fox News.
President Trump cheered the decision on Twitter, writing: “Supreme Court rules in favor of non-union workers who are now, as an example, able to support a candidate of his or her choice without having those who control the Union deciding for them. Big loss for the coffers of the Democrats!”
Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1011975204778729474
Supreme Court rules in favor of non-union workers who are now, as an example, able to support a candidate of his or her choice without having those who control the Union deciding for them. Big loss for the coffers of the Democrats!
10:11 AM - Jun 27, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Trump's Justice Department has been clear on its position -- announcing in December it was reversing course from the previous administration and supporting Janus.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissent for the court’s four liberals.
“Almost all economic and regulatory policy affects or touches speech,” she said. “So the [court] majority’s road runs long. And at every stop are black-robed rulers overriding citizens’ choices. The First Amendment was meant for better things. It was meant not to undermine but to protect democratic governance—including over the role of public-sector unions.”
Nearly 30 states have so-called "right-to-work laws" that prohibit or limit union security agreements between companies and workers' unions.
States that do allow "fair share" fees say they go to a variety of activities that benefit all workers, whether in the union or not. That includes collective bargaining for wage and benefit increases, grievance procedures, and workplace safety.
By Bill Mears | Fox News
close
Supreme Court sides with non-union workers in fees case
In a major legal and political defeat for big labor, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Wednesday that state government workers – whether they join the union or not – cannot be forced to pay so-called "fair share" fees to support collective bargaining and other union activities.
The conservative majority said a union's contract negotiations over pay and benefits were inextricably linked with its broader political activities, and concluded workers had a limited constitutional right not to underwrite such "speech."
“This procedure violates the First Amendment and cannot continue,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion. “Neither an agency fee nor any other payment to the union may be deducted from a nonmember’s wages, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay.”
While the current case applies only to public sector employees, the political and financial stakes are potentially huge for the broader American labor union movement, which had been sounding the alarm about the legal fight.
CLICK TO READ THE OPINION
The unions say 5 million government employees in 24 states and the District of Columbia would be affected by this ruling.
The majority overturned the high court's four-decade old precedent dealing with so-called "agency" fees, allowing states to require public employees to pay money supporting collective bargaining and other union activities
The key plaintiff was Mark Janus, an Illinois state employee, who pays about $550 annually to the powerful public-sector union known as AFSCME. While not a member of the union, he is required under state law to hand over a weekly portion of his paycheck -- which he says is a violation of his constitutional rights.
"I work for Health and Family Services, and I'm forced to pay money to a union that then supports political causes that I don't agree with," Janus told Fox News.
President Trump cheered the decision on Twitter, writing: “Supreme Court rules in favor of non-union workers who are now, as an example, able to support a candidate of his or her choice without having those who control the Union deciding for them. Big loss for the coffers of the Democrats!”
Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1011975204778729474
Supreme Court rules in favor of non-union workers who are now, as an example, able to support a candidate of his or her choice without having those who control the Union deciding for them. Big loss for the coffers of the Democrats!
10:11 AM - Jun 27, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Trump's Justice Department has been clear on its position -- announcing in December it was reversing course from the previous administration and supporting Janus.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissent for the court’s four liberals.
“Almost all economic and regulatory policy affects or touches speech,” she said. “So the [court] majority’s road runs long. And at every stop are black-robed rulers overriding citizens’ choices. The First Amendment was meant for better things. It was meant not to undermine but to protect democratic governance—including over the role of public-sector unions.”
Nearly 30 states have so-called "right-to-work laws" that prohibit or limit union security agreements between companies and workers' unions.
States that do allow "fair share" fees say they go to a variety of activities that benefit all workers, whether in the union or not. That includes collective bargaining for wage and benefit increases, grievance procedures, and workplace safety.
