MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Mandatory Union Dues Violate Workers' First Amendment Rights, SCOTUS Rules

A landmark victory for workers' rights will have major ramifications for the future of public sector unions.

Jeff Malet Photography/NewscomJeff Malet Photography/NewscomMore than four decades after the Supreme Court ruled that public sector workers could be required to pay dues to unions even if they do not join one, a 5–4 majority on the high court overturned that precedent in a closely watched case that could have major ramifications for the future of public sector unions.

"Under Illinois law, public employees are forced to subsi­dize a union, even if they choose not to join and strongly object to the positions the union takes in collective bar­gaining and related activities," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion. "We conclude that this arrangement violates the free speech rights of nonmem­bers by compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern."

In the short-term, the ruling in Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees means that plaintiff Mark Janus was successful in his decade-long fight to prevent the union from taking $50 out of his paycheck every two weeks. Over the years, Janus estimates, he's contributed more than $6,000 to the union.

More broadly, Wednesday's ruling could end the automatic deduction of union dues from millions of public employees' paychecks, forcing unions like AFSCME to convince workers to voluntarily contribute dues—something workers would do, presumably, only if they have a reason to do so.

"So many of us have been forced to pay for political speech and policy positions with which we disagree, just so we can keep our jobs. This is a victory for all of us," said Janus in a statement. "The right to say 'no' to a union is just as important as the right to say 'yes.' Finally our rights have been restored."

The ruling is "a landmark victory for rights of public-sector employees," said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which supported Janus' lawsuit.

While today's ruling certainly shifts the balance towards worker freedom, groups like the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which represented Janus, say they are already prepared for additional rounds of litigation. In states that previously have embraced right-to-work policies, unions have often tried to make it as difficult as possible for workers to renounce their membership.

In speaking about his case, Janus has often framed the debate as one of free speech. His interest in not paying union dues was not an attempt to secure "a better deal" on his own outside the union model, he told Reason's Nick Gillespie in June. Rather, he said, "the question is my First Amendment rights to speech and freedom of association."

That was a major point of contention during oral arguments in May. As Reason's Damon Root noted at the time: "The union's position, [Justice Anthony] Kennedy told [Illinois Solicitor General David] Frederick, involved 'mandat[ing] people that object to certain union policies to pay for the implementation of those policies against their First Amendment interests.' In other words, Kennedy seemed to suggest the mandatory fees at issue here are unconstitutional."

The free speech question has divided libertarians, though. Eugene Volokh, editor of the Volokh Conspiracy blog (which is hosted by Reason.com), submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court arguing against the First Amendment angle to the Janus case.

Janus is the second case in recent Supreme Court history to wrestle with the underlying question of whether unions can compel the payment of dues from non-members. During 2016, the Supreme Court heard the Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association case, which similarly sought to free non-union members from paying union dues. That case ended in a 4–4 draw after Justice Antonin Scalia's sudden death left the Court with an even number of conservative and liberal members.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, appointed to the court last year to fill Scalia's spot, sided with the majority in Janus.

The Janus case, like Friedrichs before it, was aimed at overturning the 1977 Supreme Court ruling in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which upheld mandatory union fees.

In the majority opinion, Alito noted the importance of following precedent "unless there are strong reasons for not doing so."

"But there are very strong reasons in this case. Fundamental free speech rights are at stake," he wrote. "Abood was poorly reasoned. It has led to practical problems and abuse. It is inconsistent with other First Amendment cases and has been undermined by more recent decisions. Developments since Abood was handed down have shed new light on the issue of agency fees, and no reliance interests on the part of public-sector unions are sufficient to justify the perpetuation of the free speech violations that Abood has countenanced for the past 41 years."

Unions had argued that overturning Abood would leave them with non-dues-paying members who would essentially become "free riders" benefitting from collective bargaining activities without contributing towards the associated costs. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Elena Kagan said the free-rider issue would be "a collective action problem of nightmarish proportions" for unions.

Whether you consider them free riders or not, unions are probably right to be worried about losing dues-paying members in the aftermath of the Janus ruling. An analysis by the Illinois Economic Policy Institute, a union-backed think tank, estimates that 726,000 workers nationally would stop paying dues if they had that choice. The loss of union members and their dues could be particularly challenging in blue states, according to the IEPI report. Public sector union membership would decrease by an estimated 189,000 members in California, 136,000 members in New York, and 49,000 members in Illinois.

"The response to Janus will be critical to the long-run survival of the U.S. labor movement," the report warns.

"In the short run, the Janus decision may hurt some unions financially, but in the long run it will serve to make unions and their members more militant and force a stronger culture of internal organizing," said Paul Shearon, secretary-treasurer for the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, in a statement to Reason.

Whether that's true remains to be seen, but certainly Wednesday's ruling ushers in a new era of union politics and shifts power back to individual workers to decide whether unions thrive or fail.

Read more Reason coverage of the Janus case.

John Stossel on the potential to extend "right to work" to public sector employees.

Damon Root on the First Amendment aspects of the case.

Scott Shackford on the Trump administration's Department of Justice reversing its stance on mandatory union dues.

Eugene Volokh and Alicia Hickok debating the merits of the case.

And check out a conversation between Nick Gillespie and Mark Janus on the Reason Podcast.

Photo Credit: Jeff Malet Photography/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Almost makes up for the internet sales tax ruling.

  • ||

    Actually, it's consistent simply in how it reflects this court's willingness to undue past stupidity.

    And I have no argument with the sales tax ruling. Generally, only utilitarians/living constitutionalists would object to it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The sales tax ruling not only makes taxes more complicated and drags business into enforcing 50 state tax laws but is unconstitutional for allowing state to project power beyond their state lines.

    Luckily, Congress can step in and wipe out this state power in one law under the Commerce Clause.

  • Juice||

    50 state tax laws

    Oh, there are way way more sales tax jurisdictions than that.

  • living in nc||

    In NC there are 100 counties and each one gets a separate sales tax plus there are a few cities also have additional sales taxes.

    There are way more then 50 taxing authorities.

  • living in nc||

    In NC there are 100 counties and each one gets a separate sales tax plus there are a few cities also have additional sales taxes.

    There are way more then 50 taxing authorities.

  • a tandem||

    And free basic account software as well as all the inexpensive small business order and accounting software, in addition to if you sell thorough ebay or etsy or anything like it all do the calculations by zip very easily.
    Seriously do you think you need a dictionary size book of rates? It is the modern world the same software that prints your shipping label will figure it out in a second

    And the smaller a business you are the MORE likely you are to favor this.

    This is not an "internet tax" the old system was a gigantic loophole for a few big business that screwed small business owners unfairly

  • Arcxjo||

    I have nothing but argument with the sales tax fiasco. My state doesn't want to build the infrastructure or business-friendly climate to allow things to be made or done here, there's no reason why they should profit from it.

    If I have to pay taxes on using the money I already paid taxes to get, it should only be to the jurismydiction that the transaction's based in.

  • a tandem||

    Disagree. and you have it backwards it was just a totally unfair loophole being closed. Now the buyers in the higher tax place have to pay the tax which will help them know it exists and then as voters they can deal with it

  • ||

    I have plenty of argument with the sales tax ruling. It was a terrible decision at odds with the Constitution.

    But they may have made it up with all the other great rulings.

  • Just Say'n||

    Nah, that ruling was a whole new level of stupid. But, this is nice

  • Longtobefree||

    The unions argument about free rides has faded into history with the computerization of payrolls. While years ago it was better to deduct dues from everyone, it is now very easy to deduct only from union members. It is equally easy to only provide union contract terms to union members, leaving non-members with out the 'free ride'.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    I think this ruling makes the free rider more likely. I think by law, union contract terms apply to everyone employed because non-members are still not allowed to negotiate on their own behalf as long as a majority of the workers want to be unionized.

  • Detroit Linguist||

    This is correct. Unions are required to bargain on behalf of all employees for whom they are the registered bargaining agent, and businesses (and governments) are forbidden to bargain separately with any single employee. And this law (enforced by the NLRB) has not been overturned. Essentially, public-service unions will now really be required to earn their living.

  • JesseAz||

    They were only required to bargain on behalf of all employees because the Unions themselves petitioned the government to make this a requirement. There are plenty of examples where this is not the requirement.

    Where did you come up with that governments are forbidden to bargain separately with any single employee? It happens all the time. See your local school superintendent.

    There is literally no law that does what you speak of unless it has been pushed by a Union to generate more dues to themselves.

  • ||

    Where did you come up with that governments are forbidden to bargain separately with any single employee? It happens all the time. See your local school superintendent.

    In Florida the superintendent serves at the pleasure of the School Board and can independently negotiate the terms of his or her employment. Because it is a right-to-work, state teachers do not have to belong to the union, but they are bound by the CBA and have no bargaining powers whatsoever in their compensation.

  • living in nc||

    Didn't know that school superintendents were union employees.

  • Mike Laursen||

    I do worry, though, that the public sector unions will start harassing those who don't want to join.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I would not harass them. I would oppose anyone who did.

    I also would not lift a finger to help them. Let them learn the ropes on their own. Let them make mistakes without a helping hand or warnings. Let them each lunch, or find a jump for a dead battery, or learn that they left their lights on, alone. Let them work their assigned shifts without switching with co-workers. Let them learn about insurance benefits, good vendors, employee discounts, and the like on their own. If they need a loan of a few dollars for bus fare at the end of the workday, let them call the nearest right-wing think tank. Let them experience every aspect of their preferred route of going it alone.

    But harassment? No.

  • Mike Laursen||

    After all that's what Jesus would do, right Reverend?

  • LibertarianJRT||

    Wow, tribalism much? In your view, not being in a union means you can't be a decent human being towards them? No workplace camaraderie? In my company, my boss would let you go if you sabotaged fellow employees like that. If you are willing to do that to a coworker, how bad are you with the customers or public?

  • a tandem||

    Unions don't do any of that anymore, they just sit in far away offices and collect funds and spend those funs largely on pollical campaigns to get legislators to support their ability to force non union workers to send money to the union (and Democrats politicians).

    40% of Union members are not democrats yet near 100% of massive (hundred of millions per cycle) forced campaign funding from dues goes to Democrats. As far as employee discounts/affiliate programs the data show they are LESS valuable to workers in unionized shops.

    I worked with a major mobile phone provider on some consulting and the average union 'negotiated discount" was 18% and non union similar sized employee groups were 23% discounts, all from the unions "negotiating" a worse deal (usually with some corrupt perks to the union "negotiators).

    Unions had a purpose 100 years ago, maybe 50, but mainly they are legalized theft from employees.

  • John||

    Understand what a union can negotiate. Public sector unions as a general rule cannot negotiate salary and benefits since those cannot be increased without consent of the legislature. So, they generally negotiate small things that really don't matter. At most they help employees that the employer is trying to fire. They are often quite effective at this. But, those sorts of services don't help free riders. The union going to the mat to keep the guy next to me from being fired doesn't help me if I am not a member.

    There will still be public sector unions. And people will still join them and benefit from them. The difference will be that the unions will have to show real value to their members and will no longer be free to spend their money on causes and things that don't directly benefit their members. The days of public sector unions being an all-purpose funding source for the left are over. And that is a very good thing.

  • Procyon Mustelid||

    Maybe they can't when they're state employee unions, but local government employee unions can and do negotiate pay and benefits. I've seen cities where your payand benefits depended on if you were non-union or in one of 5 different unions that represented different departments. 6, if you counted the teachers with the school board.

  • JesseAz||

    "Public sector unions as a general rule cannot negotiate salary and benefits since those cannot be increased without consent of the legislature." Umm... not in my state. Granted my state did empower boards to negotiate fees/salaries. But these are often controlled more by the local school board than anything else. The Az Legislature has never approved a local school superintendent salary, that has always been done locally.

  • John||

    True. At the local level they do. And they still can. They can also negotiate special benefits to their members. Again, all this means is they have to provide value for joining.

  • Detroit Linguist||

    I am retired from two public universities in two different states: Michigan and Illinois. In both, the university administration was required to bargain wages, hours and conditions of employment, by federal or state law. I know this, partly because my wife represented the University in the bargaining process so I know the excruciating details of federal and state law.

    For what it's worth, I did not join either union, although I was required to pay an agency fee in both cases.

  • Davy C||

    In Wisconsin, that's backwards; most public unions can only negotiate salary.

  • arbe59||

    "The difference will be that the unions will have to show real value to their members"

    So basically, unions themselves will no longer be free riders.

  • Arcxjo||

    Salaries being set by the legislature is exactly WHY they need your money to buy seats, don't you understand?

  • JesseAz||

    There are plenty of examples of mixed shops. I work with one in my industry, where roughly 60% of workers are under Union contract and the other 40% are not. Ironically the 40% who are not get paid more than the other 60%, albeit they also tend to have a higher per worker output.

  • John||

    Jessee, wages are set by the market and by how much money the company can afford. Unions have very little effect on wages. If they do, it doesn't last because they end up bankrupting the company.

  • JesseAz||

    Wages are set by things other than the market all the time; minimum wage for one. It is also not set by how much the company can afford because if they can't afford standard wages the company can't enslave people to work at a lower wage. People could voluntarily work there, but let's not pretend it is set by profit. It is generally understood to be set at industry levels.

    As far as Unions have very little effect on wages.... You must have missed the migration of factory workers from the northern states to the south over the last 30 years.

  • John||

    It is also not set by how much the company can afford because if they can't afford standard wages the company can't enslave people to work at a lower wage.

    That means it is set by how much the company can afford. If they can't afford prevailing wages, they go broke because they can't hire the proper employees. If they let a union bully them into paying above the prevailing wages, they go broke because the revenues can't support the wages they are paying. Both of those things are true regardless of the existence of a union. Unions don't set wages over the long term because market forces make doing that impossible.

  • JesseAz||

    Not necessarily. They could also invent or figure out a way to improve efficiency or develop a means of production requiring less labor.

  • John||

    Sure they could Jesse. And if they did, that would mean their employees are more productive. And since wages are set by productivity, the prevailing wages for their employees would be higher and thus they would no longer be paying above the prevailing wage.

  • BYODB||


    Not necessarily. They could also invent or figure out a way to improve efficiency or develop a means of production requiring less labor.

    I've been told that inevitably the only job a human will be able to have is 'robot maintenance technician' but that the job will go away immediately following the singularity. After which, of course, there will probably not be any humanity.

    I find the idea pretty ludicrous, but you'll find plenty of people who support UBI that basically think this way.

  • ||

    What sort of industry are you in?

  • JesseAz||

    I work for a technology company. Won't get into it here. But the area in question is the manufacturers union that builds a lot of our stuff. It is a split union shop. We've even had Engineers from my department fill in during the Union led strikes, which tend to end quickly as production goes up slightly with engineers doing the work. Plus we get to learn about design flaws we may have had in production design which is helpful.

  • Jerryskids||

    Temp agencies. My brother worked at a union shop that set all kinds of terms and conditions on employment, the company finally split off part of its business, started its own temp agency and hired everybody through the temp agency. Wasn't anything the union could do except grumble about how the company was violating the spirit of the collective bargaining agreement, and they were, but that was in response to the union demands that the company claimed they simply couldn't afford and the union claimed the company was bluffing about not being able to afford. An automotive supplier in Ohio talking about costs making them uncompetitive and putting them at risk of bankruptcy, and the union thinks they're bluffing? What kind of cave have them been living in for the last 40 years?

  • Procyon Mustelid||

    Same with where I work, but the big difference is the union jobs are all hourly and the non-union are salary. Engineers get paid more than electricians and painters, shocking.

  • Sevo||

    "...the 40% who are not get paid more than the other 60%, albeit they also tend to have a higher per worker output."

    I'll bet there's a cause in that correlation.

  • jerbigge||

    Effectively the none union workers get paid more because they are required to do more. What used to be called "piece work" where your pay depended upon your production. Some people are of course more "productive" than others. Absent unions, the low "productive" people eventually end up being discharged and replaced by more "productive" people.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    I'm guessing that non-paying union members will get the cold shoulder if they call a union rep regarding a grievance.

  • JesseAz||

    So the employee can choose job security versus other benefits. The horror.

  • Procyon Mustelid||

    Except that pages 16-18 of the opinion seem to say that "to only provide union contract terms to union members" isn't and won't be allowed. Maybe that was just Alito being sloppy, but...

  • soldiermedic76||

    No, it is an inherent problem in public unions. The 14A guarantees equal protection for everyone by the government, however, public employees work for the government. Therefore, the government much treat every employee equally. Even progressive statists like FDR knew public unions were a cancer on society.

  • soldiermedic76||

    And FYI, I am a public employees.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    This is going to get ugly. Mark Janus may want to hire some bodyguards.

  • albo||

    Hope he enjoys cooking at home.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    "Hard to cook at home with 2 broken arms"

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    As Mr. Janus prefers, his colleagues should leave him alone.

    No one should attempt to harm him.

    Should a colleague point out that he has made an error before he submits a report, or that something he says indicates he is mistaken concerning a deadline, or that he has placed himself in an unsafe situation?

    I thought he wanted to be on his own.

  • damikesc||

    In Artie's world, basic humanity requires rules to exist.

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    See, I thought it was because he didn't want to pay for political speech he disagrees with, but your unsophisticated view is ... something.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I would not threaten or harass a freeloader. I would object to anyone who did it, and support firing anyone who persisted.

    I also would not lift a finger an inch to help a freeloader. Or speak with a freeloader at lunch. Or provide a jumpstart for a dead battery for a freeloader. Or invite the freeloader to join the bowling or softball league. Or lend a freeloader five dollars. Or provide change for a dollar for a freeloader. Or invite the freeloader to a birthday celebration.

    If someone wants to go it alone, who should interfere with that preference?

  • JesseAz||

    I encourage liberal violence as a demonstration of how bad their ideas and thoughts actually are. There was an open call in Splinter (offshoot of gizmodo's parent) openly calling fore firebombing like the 70s. This is what liberals are. Violent fascists. The more open they are about it, the better.

  • SRoach||

    Any group, who sees their position slipping away, will have members who will get violent. So the left is seeing a slide they don't like, or the potential for that slide, and they decide to firebomb a place. So the right sees some uppity n* walking down the sidewalk, and basically acting like a normal young man rather than a cowed son of slaves, and they decide to string him up.

    This isn't a left vs right thing. It's a willing to commit violence vs not willing to commit violence thing.
    I doubt you'll find a group over a certain size that doesn't have at least a few people able and willing to commit violence to forward the agenda they espouse.
    Very possibly including pacifists.

    To my mind. Violence may not be the last resort, but if someone has resorted to it, it means they feel threatened; that they won't get their way otherwise.

    As an aside, there are certain words I try to refrain from saying, but some arguments work best if you at least imply the words. As my argument is intended to illustrate the point by bringing up the attitudes of a bygone time, I feel it necessary to at least hint at the word that would have been used in that context.

  • John||

    To my mind. Violence may not be the last resort, but if someone has resorted to it, it means they feel threatened; that they won't get their way otherwise.

    Exactly. The left resorting to violence is not a sign of strength. it is a sign of how weak they are. If they had any real power, they would not have to resort to violence.

  • Azathoth!!||

    So the right sees some uppity n* walking down the sidewalk, and basically acting like a normal young man rather than a cowed son of slaves, and they decide to string him up.

    NO.

    The people doing the lynching were DEMOCRATS They supported all the progressive policies--among them the genocide of black people.

    STOP tying the racist history of the Democrats to the people who fight racism--the people who fought racism when the Democrats they were standing in opposition to had the power to kill them with impunity.

  • SRoach||

    Labels are just that, labels.
    In many cases, the Democrats of the 1950's are more analogous to today's Republicans, while the Republicans of that era are more analogous to today's Democrats. Platforms shifted, largely over the Civil Rights movement, and people changed allegiance. Many a southern Democrat started voting Republican until, in my lifetime, the predominant party at the county level finally changed from one to the other. Likewise, a large number of black Republicans shifted over to the Democrats.

    For these type of arguments, covering events that span decades, or even a century or two, I prefer to substitute liberal and conservative for Democrat and Republican, or Whig and Democrat-Republican.

    The people who were doing the lynching were likely as not registered Democrat when the lynching took place, but I bet most voted Nixon in the next election.

  • SRoach||

    And yes, I'm well aware that the Nolan chart would be better, but since our system does break into two sides, largely due to the winner-take-all nature of our election system, the popular liberal vs conservative labels work for me.

  • SRoach||

    According to Wikipedia, I was wrong about who those Southern Democrats voted for next. Again, according to Wikipedia, a large number of them voted for Thurmond rather than Nixon.
    Reason's board ate my earlier reply.

  • albo||

    If unions had not built a huge, money-spewing political machine allied hand in glove with the Democratic party this might never have happened.

  • ||

    "If..."

  • Jerryskids||

    You mean elections have consequences? Who knew?

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Class-Action Lawsuits Targeting Unions Filed in 7 States
    Class-action lawsuits have been filed targeting unions in seven states ahead of a Supreme Court decision that will determine the constitutionality of mandatory fees, The Washington Free Beacon reports.

    Public-sector workers are aiming to recoup back wages they paid to labor unions as they await the High Court's decision on the case, "Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees," the Free Beacon reports.

  • Procyon Mustelid||

    The court's treatment of the duty of fair representation is disturbing. If the union can't charge nonmembers, why shouldn't it be allowed to (and do) try to negotiate a contract that's good for its members at the expense of nonmembers? Alito drops some dicta saying it can't, with a cite to a terrible analogy in a 1944 case. Bad.

  • JesseAz||

    Nothing requires the union to represent non members other than unions asking for that requirement to have greater bargaining power.

  • Procyon Mustelid||

    Uh, right in the opinion ruling on this case, Justice Alito suggests the Constitution requires the unions to represent non-members whether they want to or not.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Unions are private organizations. The constitution makes no requirement of private organizations, unless they are acting as agents of the government.

  • Procyon Mustelid||

    Ok. I agree with you, but I'm not Supreme Court ofthe United States Associate Samuel Alito, though, so my agreement doesn't really matter. I'm not any of the other Associate Justices, either. Or the Chief Justice.

  • TW||

    I'd be fine with repealing the Sherman Act in its entirety which means that unions wouldn't have to represent nonmembers and also that employers would be able to deny unions access to their facilities as they would any other trespasser. Deal?

  • Procyon Mustelid||

    Sherman Act? I thought unions were under the Clayton, National Labor Relations, Norris-LaGuardia and Davis-Bacon acts?

  • Longtobefree||

    The Sherman Act is the concept of 'total war' applied to destroying civilian infrastructure and civilians in Georgia during the late unpleasantness. (Approved in writing by A. Lincoln)

  • TW||

    I believe you're correct on the name of the statute(s) but my larger point still stands - unions shouldn't have to represent nonmembers anymore than employers should be required to grant unions access to their facilities or personnel. Employers should be able to deny union organizers access to their sites just as they would any other unwanted trespasser.

  • Procyon Mustelid||

    Gotcha. Caught me doing something I hate, too.

  • Procyon Mustelid||

    And as for your points... I agree unions should not have to do a thing for non-members but that is not the law, but I'm not sure that's possible (especially if the hints in the court's opinion today that repealing the requirement to represent non-members would be ruled unconstitutional turn out to be accurate). And I agree that employers shouldn't have to allow non-employee union organizers into their places... but does that really happen? The only place I've ever worked where there was a union, all the union recruiting and "organizing" was done by people who worked there.

  • Mickey Rat||

    The unions have the same economic model as squeegee men. Demanding payment for an unasked for service.

  • JoeB||

    Unions are free to devise a different business model. One that doesn't hold hostage the free speech of nonmembers, is all.

  • TJM||

    Notice how the progressive justices, in this case Kagan, are always making statements about outcomes or repercussions that aren't any of a SCOTUS justice's concern?

  • ||

    At least they come right out and say it. Scholars like Dorf try to argue that both sides are doing it, but only the liberals on honest about it. I think Dorf is full of shit.

  • Hunthjof||

    Well remember when Sonia Sotomayor Obama openly stated that she would not only use the law but empathy to decide cases. For liberals it is almost always feelings over Constitution.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The preamble of the Constitution describes how feelings are to be used to determine law.

  • JesseAz||

    What part of provide for the common welfare don't you understand! -liberals

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Virtue signalling?

    "Shame what will happen to your business now".

  • arbe59||

    ^ THIS!

    She seems to lament the fact (which nobody seems to be arguing) that this will be potentially disastrous for the unions. Who gives a shit!??!?? That's the unions' problem. Just imagine that argument being used to uphold slavery (very clearly a violation of the first amendment right to liberty), because with it's abolition, the economy of the south would be ruinously affected by the sudden shortage of forced labor and the need to find and pay voluntary labor?

  • Citizen X||

    Unions had argued that overturning Abood would leave them with non-dues-paying members who would essentially become "free riders" benefitting from collective bargaining activities without contributing towards the associated costs.

    For "associated costs," read "union organizers' fancy houses and expensive cars."

  • Jerryskids||

    The free rider problem has always pissed me off - I put a lot of work, time and money, into making my lawn look attractive and people who drive by are allowed to look at it for free without contributing a damn thing to my lawn's upkeep. Where's my money?!?!

  • Citizen X||

    Don't even get me started on how all you people get to enjoy my scintillating commentary without remunerating me one thin dime.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Crusty leaves you gifts on your front patio every week or so.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    On or under?

  • Longtobefree||

    You get paid all you are worth.

  • Mickey Rat||

    I think you will find you are renumerated at the going market rate.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    "In the short run, the Janus decision may hurt some unions financially, but in the long run it will serve to make unions and their members more militant and force a stronger culture of internal organizing," said Paul Shearon, secretary-treasurer for the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, in a statement to Reason.

    Emphasis added. Is he making the argument that a more militant labor force is a good thing??

  • Citizen X||

    Some people just want to watch the world burn... because they work for the Firefighter's Union, and stand to gain a great deal of influence thereby.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Fahrenheit 451?

  • Shirley Knott||

    Nah. Ankh-Morpork after the concept of insurance was first introduced.
    Ah, Pratchett, how he is missed.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    In-sewer-ants?

  • Shirley Knott||

    Bingo.
    Echo-gnomics.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Ah, Terry Pratchett is absolutely my favorite. May have to reread Discworld series now.

  • soldiermedic76||

    For the ninth or tenth time.

  • Shirley Knott||

    After you re-read Raising Steam, read the biography Joseph Paxton: the Busiest Man in England. No idea if Pratchett read it, but it covers a comparable period in the history of Great Britain. A fascinating book about a fascinating man. Not quite Moist von Lipwig, but if anything more energetic and more diverse in his endeavors.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Thanks for the suggestion.

  • General_Tso||

    'Backdraft'?

  • Ride 'Em||

    Most likely true. A result may be that more moderate employees leave so the union membership shifts to a more radical stance increasing the likelihood of strikes.

  • John C. Randolph||

    The entire purpose of unions in this country is to skim workers' paychecks to buy hookers and blow for mobsters and politicians. "Free riders", my ass.

    -jcr

  • sarcasmic||

    forcing unions like AFSCME to convince workers to voluntarily contribute dues—something workers would do, presumably, only if they have a reason to do so.

    Police unions will not be affected.

  • Just Say'n||

    Our brave boys in blue

  • damikesc||

    Can anybody explain why "free riders" are anybody but the union's concern? Dont see why taxpayers should serve as the bag man.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    That was essentially the ruling from SCOTUS.

    Second, avoiding "the risk of 'free riders,' "Abood, supra, at 224, is not a compelling state interest. Free-rider "arguments . . . are gener-ally insufficient to overcome First Amendment objections," Knox, su-pra, at 311, and the statutory requirement that unions represent members and nonmembers alike does not justify different treatment.
  • Procyon Mustelid||

    Because the taxpayers' legislature and courts required the free riders to be there.

  • damikesc||

    Sounds like tough shit to me. It is not my concern. We should ban public unions as is.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Ultimately 'free riders' is the "reasoning" behind eminent domain.
    And 'public works' in general.

  • My Dog Bites Better Than Yours||

    Justice Elena Kagan said the free-rider issue would be "a collective action problem of nightmarish proportions" for unions

    I agree with her. The problem for the union is now they will have to provide a service worth paying for, month-after-month.

    Kagan should have added "NTTIAWWT"

  • Just Say'n||

    WOW!

  • Citizen X||

    SOMEBODY'S balls got well and truly gargled.

  • Just Say'n||

    I may be in love with Gorsuch

  • Just Say'n||

    "would" gargle his balls

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Trump gets massive credit for Gorsuch alone

  • Sevo||

    OH!
    EM!
    GEE!

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    It's unclear to me whether this applies only to public sector unions? Do any of our resident lawyers know?

  • John||

    This clearly applies only to public sector unions. The reason for that is that it is the government that is telling you that you must join a union. It does not apply to private sector unions because they are the private sector. Even in states that do not have right to work laws, no one is required to join a union. They only have to join a union if they want to work for a company where the workers have chosen to form one. Basically, in those states it is legal for a private employer to insist that you join a union. That is not subject to the 1st Amendment protections that the government forcing you to join a union is subject to.

  • John||

    An analysis by the Illinois Economic Policy Institute, a union-backed think tank, estimates that 726,000 workers nationally would stop paying dues if they had that choice.

    I honestly do not see how anyone who claims to be a libertarian can support the government forcing people to spend money to support and join an organization. The only argument made in response to this is "but if we don't force people there won't be any unions." Okay. First, I do not think that is true. But even if it were, if the only way for unions to exist is for the government to force people to join them, then maybe unions shouldn't exist? I think the right not to be forced to join an organization outweighs any compelling interest in having unions.

  • Tony||

    I don't want to pay taxes to support... anything. I'm against taxes. I'm a libertarian! If I just so happen to benefit from all the shit taxes pay for, well that's your problem isn't it?

  • Just Say'n||

    If Catholic Charities was allowed to garnish your wages in order to support its social work, you'd support that even though they're religious which is literally Hitler to progressives?

  • Tony||

    Nobody is forced to work for any employer.

    Libertarians aren't for worker freedom. They're in fact for employer dictatorship. Employers get to set all the terms. If workers want to collectivize, they aren't allowed to set terms like employers are, because reasons.

  • ||

    Doesn't this ruling apply only to public sector unions, which are already covered under civil service protection?

  • Tony||

    Nobody's forced to work for any employer, including the government. I don't see why there should be a distinction between sectors when it comes to collective bargaining rights. In fact the only reason the anti-human right is going after public-sector unions is because they've already obliterated private-sector ones. Your paycheck feel heavier as a result of that?

  • Just Say'n||

    You don't get his point at all. There are already civil service protections for government workers. You can't even fire a government employer without first providing him a hearing. There is no need for any union. If anything, government jobs should become less protected. And it's immoral to make others pay for pure political work, which is the bulk of what public unions do nowadays

  • Procyon Mustelid||

    Only some workers for some governments have civil service protection. Plenty can be fired without hearings. At-will employment's pretty common at cities.

  • JesseAz||

    So you're ignorant on who the first amendment applies to. Stay stupid Tony.

  • arbe59||

    Tony, there is a major fundamental difference between a public sector and a private sector union, and that is that the entity paying for public sector wages/salaries is the taxpayer, unlike a private employer. Therefore, public sector collective bargaining represent a collusion between government and a small group, at the expense of an 3rd party (taxpayers) who are not directly involved in the process. This is the precise reason that even FDR considered public sector unions unconstitutional.

    For private sector unions, at least the employer engaged in the collective bargaining process is the direct bearer of the costs of these contracts. Libertarians don't care if the private employer realizes direct consequences from willfully capitulating to union demands in such negotiations. The only real issue that freedom-lovers have with private sector unions is when individual employees are forced against their will to pay these unions dues.

  • Tony||

    Defense contractors are also paid with taxpayer money. What fiduciary responsibility to appropriators have to taxpayers in those deals?

    Government workers don't make a lot of money. We can choose to permit them labor protections that work in their interest if we want. It only helps society and the economy for them and any other workers to be able to negotiate for more wages and better working conditions.

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    1st rule of holes.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Defense contractors are private entities that must bid on government projects. That is a rather large difference.

  • Shirley Knott||

    You really don't understand basic economics, do you?
    Things like competition and supply & demand.

  • Tony||

    Basic market functions do not adequately provide for a decent standard of living for most people, which is why we had to tweak them. What you have is a dogma. Market worship. The ball on which our eyes should be kept is, actually, human well-being, not satisfying the demands of market deities.

  • Sevo||

    "Basic market functions do not adequately provide for a decent standard of living for most people, which is why we had to tweak them."

    Stupid shit still doesn't understand that the lefty assertions are not arguments.

  • JesseAz||

    You're in the top 5% of globals wage owners. I don't see you advocating to send your paycheck to Ghana. The standard of living is needs to stop. You fucking idiots cite a living standard that includes living in a 2 bedroom apartment without roommates as a core cost of that standard.

  • Shirley Knott||

    What a perverse disconnect.
    How do markets work if not by satisfying wants?
    How is having wants satisfied not an increase in well-being?
    Or do you think you can better decide what people want than they do?
    Silly me, of course you do.

    The question remains — what makes people wealthy?
    The powerful have always "tweaked" markets. It was only when they began to let go that the great enrichment occurred.
    Read McCloskey. And try providing arguments and evidence, not assertions disconnected from any evidential support.

  • Ariki||

    And how do you want to achieve this "human wellbeing" oh mighty Tony, overload of utopia?
    Would you like your gun today? Or perhaps a sword might be more to your fancy?
    Poke Poke Poke those slaves.

  • JesseAz||

    Union loving liberals aren't forced to work for the government either.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Except this is a ruling in favor of a worker who did not want to collectivize.

    Furthermore, if the government is your employer, it is not allowed to compel you to donate to a political party, which is essentially the result the union sought.

  • ||

    I wish I could give you an upvote.

  • ||

    This is the best you can do?

    Reason needs to hire a better caliber of intern.

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    You are the stupidest human being ever to suck oxygen out of the atmosphere.

  • ||

    >>You are the stupidest human being ever to suck oxygen out of the atmosphere.

    'Tony' doesn't believe the things he posts. He is a Reason intern whose duties including trolling H&R in order to prevent it from becoming an echo chamber.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Janus does not owe his fellow workers, the union members, anything.

    They, similarly, owe him nothing.

    This reminds me of a scene from Stripes. Sgt. Hulka is trying to promote bonding among his new recruits, asking them to share information about themselves, and one guy is a belligerent jerk. Hulka walks to the jerk and says 'you're all in this together.' Looking at Francis, the jerk, he adds 'one of these men may save your life someday, you understand that?'

    Bill Murray's character observes: 'And maybe one of us won't.'

    I encourage the freeloaders such as Mr. Janus to have fun at work. As they prefer, they're on their own. And everyone else may get to observe the performance and safety consequences of an 'you're on your own' approach in the workplace.

  • Just Say'n||

    "Carry on clingers" he said to a group of construction workers who were laying cement. "What did you say?" One of the construction workers asked as he approached the pencil mustached Reverend. "I was just saying: enjoy being my inferior". He was trying to stand his ground, but the way he gripped at his ascot betrayed his underlying fear. The construction workers were broad shouldered and did not appear to have been raised on a daily dose of soy and cowardice, unlike the good Reverend. "Nice ascot, shithead", one of the construction workers remarked. The Reverend trying to back away as the workers stepped closer to him. "I...I...read the New York Times" the Reverend began "do you even know where the New York Times is from?". He thought his joke was good, but in reality it was only as funny as the ridiculous character who spoke it. "Come here, shithead," one of the construction workers said as he moved closer. Before anything could happen the Reverend's pompous attitude became all the more ridiculous as he crapped himself in fear.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I'll remember that story when Mr. Janus is struck by a car that one of his co-workers, relying on his right to avoid compelled speech, and recalling Mr. Janus' preference for going it alone, does not warn him about as they cross a street.

    Or when I shoot a belligerent construction worker in the leg.

    Carry on, you half-educated, bigoted, wrong-side-of-history, obsolete malcontent.

  • Citizen X||

    Just Say'n, i believe the above is autistic anime nerd-speak for "gargle my balls." Are you gonna stand for that?

  • Just Say'n||

    I respect all expressions of people telling others to "gargle balls"

  • Azathoth!!||

    Aw, dude, aren't you getting it yet?

    Artie's a cargo-cultist.

    He firmly believes that the magical city-folk are like urban angels, here to save the world from hicks--and he tries, desperately, to act like them.

    Problem is, being a hick himself, the only image of city-folk Artie knows is the one that other hicks talk about--that of haughty arrogance

    So he tries to present that--even though he only knows what 'haughty arrogance' means from the ancient computer they let him touch in the bookmobile......well, it's just a meth lab/brothel now, but in between truckers, Artie's mombrother let's him post.

    And dayum does that boy know how to gargle balls--just ask his mombrother

  • imgene||

    By "freeloader" you mean fellow employees who happen to have a different set of thoughts and opinions than you.

    And when someone has a differing opinion, your position is that person should be left to die.

    "They, similarly, owe him nothing." I guess that includes human decency?

    ...One wonders why so many people aren't excited to be involved with (and fund) this sort of mentality...

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You are free to like freeloaders, who in this case tend to be right-wing malcontents.

    I am free to disdain those losers . . . and why should the betters help the lessers, let alone for free?

  • Just Say'n||

    LOL, oh Balko. What happened to you? Was it the Russians?

  • Sevo||

    "...and why should the betters help the lessers, let alone for free?..."

    Thank you!
    That is exactly why unions should not be recognized as a bargaining unit.
    Under union contracts, those who can and do good work have to drag the laggards along with them.

  • JesseAz||

    You'd defend the mob asking for "security fees" if they supported Dems

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    Run head first into a brick wall as many times as it takes to rid the universe of your existence.

  • Flatulus||

    All pro-union thugs eventually fall back to extortion. "It would be a shame if you were to have an *accident* at work!"

  • Old Smokin' Egg||

    The whole free-rider argument is based on the flawed assumption that all workers want the same thing. In fact, different workers may have different wishes, such that a union representing a majority of the workers would be acting against the preferences of a minority.

    Consider health benefits. Most workers have spouses and children, and have saved little or nothing in their rainy-day accounts, so would probably want low-deductible low-copay coverage for the entire family, even if this comes at the cost of lower wages. However, a single child-free employee who'd saved for a major emergency would probably prefer a less gold-plated health plan combined with a higher wage. For that employee, mandatory union dues means he's forced to cough up money to support an organization that's working against his interests.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Such very good news.
    It will be fascinating to see how this plays out.

  • JFree||

    Agree. What I would like to see in response is school districts decentralize again. Unions didn't create the consolidation but they certainly made it impossible to de-consolidate.

    Revert back to individual school boards managing individual schools. That's the only way to restore accountability to actual students/parents/neighbors. And since individual teachers and support staff also tend to orient themselves towards the people they are around every day, it would force unions to compete to better represent them.

    There's really not much that has to occur at the district level - capital/construction finance, audit/legal, consolidation of taxes - none of which directly involves teaching or service/facilities on a daily basis.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I don't know or understand the constitutional implications of this ruling, but any ruling that sticks it to public employee unions can't be all bad.

  • John||

    The Constitutional implications are actually not that big. All this ruling says is that the government cannot force you to join a private organization as a condition of employment, which is effectively a government benefit. That should have never been allowed in the first place. Imagine if the government forced people to join "workers support organizations" as a condition of getting unemployment or welfare? It would be outrageous and never stand up in court. Forcing people to join a union as a condition of government employment is no different.

    It is very disappointing, though sadly not surprising, that Volk came down on the other side of this. If you think it is okay for the government to force people to join and support private organizations, I don't see how you can claim to be a libertarian. It is especially appalling when you consider that the Volk Conspiracy spent all yesterday claiming that the government is subject to strict scrutiny and all of the restrictions found in the BOR when making determining when non citizens can enter the country and at the same time is claiming that the government can completely disregard the 1st Amendment and force citizens to support private organizations as a condition of employment. They are just partisan hacks.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It almost sounds like protection for freedom of association.

  • John||

    That is exactly what it is.

  • SRoach||

    While I agree with the sentiment, I have to disagree with the substance.
    Imagine, instead, that the government forced people to join "medical support organizations", or face being fined for "freeloading". Don't allow yourself to be deluded into thinking something will never happen, when something much like it has, and recently.

    Also, the implications are pretty nice: That the originalists may have the bit in their teeth and we may see a return to a less legislated world. Probably not, but I can dream.

  • John||

    That is a good point. This case shows how much of a results driven decisions the Penaltax decision actually was. By its logic, this case should have gone the other way. The fact that it didn't with the author of the Penaltiax decision refusing to apply its logic, shows how limited to its facts it already is.

  • Procyon Mustelid||

    Why does employment count as a government benefit?

  • creech||

    Unions can easily solve the free rider problem. Ask all their friends in Congress to pass legislation that says, in effect,
    "No dues, then we don't bargain for you."

  • Procyon Mustelid||

    Alito's opinion implies that law would also be unconstitutional.

  • Bored Lawyer||

    Why?

  • John||

    Equal protection. The government cannot treat two similarly situated persons differently. Moreover, paying someone less because they did not join a union is punishing them for the exercise of a fundamental right. And that is not something the government can do.

  • Procyon Mustelid||

    Yup. Apparently it's not an original idea, he sites the new-to-me case of Steele v Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 323 U.S. 192 (1944) for the proposition.

  • Procyon Mustelid||

    Cites. Grr...

  • Flinch||

    In the case of a public sector union, paying non members less takes our eye off the ball: they are "paying" union workers more because that money is coming back in dues that will be skimmed for campaign contributions. In other words, members are not paying their dues on net: the taxpayer is. It's as close to looting the treasury in direct fashion as anyone can get without winding up in an orange jumpsuit.

  • John||

    The assumption behind that debate is that unions are able to get wages that the market might not otherwise command. In the private sector, that is not true since doing so would bankrupt the company. In the public sector, it can be true since governments can just tax their constituents more to pay for any wage increases. That, however, means that public sector unions get government workers above market wages at the expense of the taxpayer. And this is a good thing how? Moreover, how on earth is the interest in allowing public sector employees the ability to negotiate above market wages compelling at all much less so compelling that it overrides the interest in the government not being able to force people to join and support private organizations?

    To say it for the third time, my God is Volk's position on this appalling.

  • geraltcloud9||

    This outcome seems absolutely correct to me, but it does raise a particular issue that needs to be address by state legislatures. As I understand it, employers are not allowed to compensate non-union members differently than union members after collective bargaining. That is to say, when a union negotiates a pay raise, every employee gets the raise, regardless of union membership. This was used to justify the existence of mandatory contributions to unions, but now makes absolutely zero sense. Free riders shouldn't get to reap the rewards of the union's existence without being a dues paying member of the union, so laws that require that outcome should be repealed. Then the union and the employees can all make rational decisions- if the employees think the unions can get them higher wages, better conditions, etc., they'd better join to see those benefits. But if they feel like the costs outweigh the benefits then they won't join. As it stands now, they get all the benefits, so why would any of them pay the costs? That needs to change.

  • Azathoth!!||

    But isn't the whole point of unions to help workers? That's supposedly all they do, right? So why has it ever mattered that their actions benefitted people who weren't members?

    Or are you saying that some people positioned themselves as de facto owners of peoples labor with the intent of using extortion techniques to generate an income and that allowing people to benefit without paying blackmail--extortion--'dues' might cause their entire criminal edifice to collapse?

    Because that's what it looks like you're saying.

  • Johnny B||

    Yes, Rev. -- Advocating workplace violence has a long union tradition. Nice work.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Not violence. Refraining from helping someone who neither wants nor deserves help.

    Get someone who is educated to explain this distinction.

  • Sevo||

    "Not violence."

    Of course not. We understand that you don't mean violence - violence, just a little nudge with the baseball bat.
    We got your number.

  • Citizen X||

    If some union heavies happen to kick down Janus's door in the middle of the night and start swinging tire irons around, well, it's on Janus if he doesn't happen to get his kneecaps out of the way.

  • BYODB||

    If memory serves, Unions historically have liked using bombs but baseball bats are always a staple favorite.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I'm talking about not speaking with a freeloader socially -- at lunch, before work, after work. Not inviting the freeloader to social events. Not pointing out mistakes or misunderstandings, or providing advice. Not lending a freeloader money for busfare. Not alerting a freeloader who left car lights on. Not providing a jumpstart for a dead battery. Not giving a piece of birthday cake or a celebratory cookie to a freeloader. Not offering a freeloader a spot in the carpool. Not telling the freeloader the best place to buy supplies.

    If people wish to go it alone, I believe that preference should be respected.

  • Bored Lawyer||

    Unions had argued that overturning Abood would leave them with non-dues-paying members who would essentially become "free riders" benefitting from collective bargaining activities without contributing towards the associated costs.

    Why is this so? Seems to me that in the age of computers, it would be easy to have two tiers of employees -- union members and non-members. Why can't the unions just bargain for their members, and leave the non-members to their own devices. Any salary or benefits the union extracts from the state would be just for their members. That could be in the contract -- these benefits are only for members, and the state can pay non-members whatever the market will bear.

  • John||

    Equal protection prevents governments from paying two similarly situated employees different wages. Beyond that, think about this from an economic perspective. There is a prevailing wage for employees. If the government does not pay that, it won't get qualified employees. So, the market effectively prevents the government from underpaying its employees. So what purpose to unions serve? Public sector unions are able to use the collective power of their employees and their money, votes and perhaps ability to strike to force governments to pay above-market wages to their employees.

    In the private sector, this is not a problem. Any union that manages to extract above-market wages from an employer will be cutting off its nose to spite its face because getting such wages will eventually bankrupt the employer and leave everyone without a job. Public employee unions have no such constraint. Public entities can just use the power of the gun to extract more money from their citizens to pay for the above market wages.

    In the end, all forcing people to join these unions accomplishes is to allow unions to extract above-market wages for government employees at the expense of the taxpayer. And this is a good thing how?

  • Longtobefree||

    But they are NOT similarly situated.
    One is a union member, one is not. That they work in the same place is not relevant.

  • John||

    And that difference is the result of one person exercising their first amendment right to not associate with a union. The government cannot punish someone for the exercise of a fundamental right.

    To the exent they are not similarly situated, it is because of each parties exercise of a fundamental right. And that is not a legal basis for the government to discriminate against someone.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Why does anyone think that non-union members will get paid LESS?

  • Procyon Mustelid||

    I believe the thinking is that one worker who wants a raise can be ignored, because he is easily eliminated and replaced, but lots of workers who all want a raise can't be ignored because it's too hard to eliminate and replace them all at once.

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    So, fear.

  • Procyon Mustelid||

    Well, it's obviously good for the employees. They get paid more.

  • geraltcloud9||

    As I understand it, most (if not all) states have laws that say that employers can't do that- if the union negotiates a raise for certain types of employees (say all registered nurses or something like that) then every registered nurse gets that raise, regardless of union membership. Until states repeal laws requiring that type of equal treatment by employers, then the unions have a legitimate and worrisome free rider problem. The solution of course is not to object to the opinion in this case- rather, the solution is to repeal those laws.

  • Sevo||

    "...Until states repeal laws requiring that type of equal treatment by employers, then the unions have a legitimate and worrisome free rider problem. The solution of course is not to object to the opinion in this case- rather, the solution is to repeal those laws."

    Exactly.
    The free-rider claim is a problem with existing law, not in any way connected to the free-speech issue here.

  • SRoach||

    The solution is to publish the roster of dues paying members. If the union is honestly seen as a bulwark between the management and the needs of the workers, then social pressure to join will encourage people to sign up, the same way a church usher prodding a miserly parishioner with an offering plate, in plain view of those he wishes to stay on good terms with, will prompt him to open his wallet in order to avoid ostracism.
    On the other hand, if the workers don't see the need to be protected from a management they happen to get along with, they won't.
    If that changes, of course, the unions should remember who paid in, and for how long, in determining who gets not-working pay, and how much. The guy who joined up the day the strike was called may need to go get a second job flipping burgers to avoid losing his house.
    That is, make certain that the insurance and mutual support portion of the dues is clearly linked to how long the person has been a full paying member.
    I don't know if this is possible under the current legal system. I'm more speculating on the fly.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I worked through the night to build barrels to collect tears over the Trump win on the Travel Ban and now this!

  • Eidde||

  • Rockabilly||

    Ah - The King Of Pain!! So many tears!!!

  • Tony||

    Do you think or have evidence that the travel ban will improve this country in any measurable way, or do you just like sticking it to the brown menace?

  • John||

    People from Venezuela and North Korea are not brown you half wit. Hell, neither are people from Syria. You really are a stupid hick, aren't you?

  • Tony||

    I thought North Koreans were our friends now. I swear I watched Trump give Kim Jong-Un a titty fuck the other day.

  • ||

    Was Obama 'friends' with the Iranians when he signed that horseshit 'deal'?

  • Tony||

    You don't know jack shit about that deal except that some orange fucktard told you it was bad.

  • ||

    Ha.

    Well, of course, the 'secret' parts we may not know but we know the overall structure of the deals you idiot.

    And it's not good - full stack in favor of an unpopular theocracy that was not asked to change its behaviour.

    Never mind he never asked for any prisoners as an exchange. So much for getting 'our boys full stop', eh?

    I find it incredibly disingenuous the left is mocking bringing North Korea to the table. Seoul is happy as is Japan - but what the fuck do progs like you care, right? What's important is 'sticking it to Trump.'

    That's not an argument or principle, Tony.

  • Tony||

    So we're just going to sit here and pretend that the concessions on their nuclear program are a total fantasy.

  • ||

    Those were hardly enforceable concessions Tony - that's the point.

    Look at what Pompeo is doing. THAT'S how yo do it.

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    You are such a fucking retard.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The interesting thing is tat opposition to Trump's latest version of the travel ban was almost all about signaling--even by the courts when they started ruling, not based on the text of the revised ban but on things Trump said at campaign rallies.

    In other words, the left wants to dismiss the ban itself as being all about empty signaling, but they're the ones who made it that way.

  • Tony||

    Did it not originate in his campaign pledge to ban the entry of Muslims into the US? Is that not the single reason it exists?

  • BYODB||

    Given that the list was written by the Obama administration, unlikely.

    It is amusing to watch liberals and progressives suddenly wake up and realize that Obama was terrible though, even if they're still incapable of admitting it directly.

    If Trump wanted to ban Muslims, it's curious why he didn't ban Muslims in any way, shape, or form.

    I do, however, note the lock-step propaganda by all media outlets in referring to the countries on the list as 'Muslim majority' as if that is somehow significant. It truly reveals the baseline dishonesty of virtually all American media outlets to state things in such a clearly disingenuous light. The ban did not apply to over 90% of the Muslim world, so interpreting it as a Muslim ban is a literal lie.

    There's no other way to interpret what's going on here. I strongly suspect that TDS will lead to someone taking a shot at Trump. I was wrong about that when Obama was elected, and I was glad that I was wrong. I hope I'm wrong this time too, but the outrage meter has pegged at 11 and the needle is threatening to break off.

  • ||

    For sure.

    Tell them Obama sent the NG to the border and watch their heads explode:

    https://cnn.it/2Jj8VIy

    The only difference is the policy of separating kids (sent illegally or sent without parents in some cases) from the family - where I'm sure they were properly cared for. Even then, the Obama administration wasn't exactly 100% 'compassionate'. Neve mind two facilities were built by Obama and the fact he deported millions of illegal immigrants. Here's the kicker, this isn't 'whataboutism' this is to bring perspective to the debate. In fact, it's one of the few things Obama did that I reckon Americans as a whole would likely support during his mediocre reign of fluff. He had the right to do so as President from what I understand.

    So again, on the balance, when context is considered the left are hyper-ventilating because Trump.

  • BYODB||


    So again, on the balance, when context is considered the left are hyper-ventilating because Trump.

    Precisely. There is no other rational way to interpret this. If this kind of thing continues, I'm going to vote for Trump. I fully admit it's cutting off my own nose to spite my face, but it truly concerns me at how obvious the honest-to-god propaganda machine is at this point.

    Combined with post-9/11 national security apparatus and intelligence expansions, and we're essentially at the precipice and I'm not sure if there's any going back. The fact these were, at least potentially, used on a Republican candidate for President could be the last we'll see of the Republic.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Did it not originate in his campaign pledge to ban the entry of Muslims into the US?"'

    Campaign pledges are irrelevant. What matters is what the EO says. Talk is talk, it's the action that counts. In the end it was not a Muslim ban since it banned a subset of Muslims.

  • Rockabilly||

    Sweet!!!

  • ||

    Good riddance protection racket!

  • Shirley Knott||

    It would have been truly epic if they could have found a way to work some of FDR's quotes on public sector unions into the decision.
    Inappropriate, if for no other reason than the nature of the case and decision, but epic.

  • BYODB||


    "So many of us have been forced to pay for political speech and policy positions with which we disagree, just so we can keep our jobs. This is a victory for all of us," said Janus in a statement. "The right to say 'no' to a union is just as important as the right to say 'yes.' Finally our rights have been restored."


    Damn right. Unions have been receding for a long, long time but unfortunately I don't think there's a silver bullet to put them in the ground for good. This should wound them pretty good though.


    Whether you consider them free riders or not, unions are probably right to be worried about losing dues-paying members in the aftermath of the Janus ruling. An analysis by the Illinois Economic Policy Institute, a union-backed think tank, estimates that 726,000 workers nationally would stop paying dues if they had that choice.


    Uh oh, Democrats just took a huge fundraising hit I think. The nakedly single-party affiliation of Unions was a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head but in fairness they didn't have much option since only one of the two major parties is openly socialist. It's also an amusing tacit admission that most of their members don't fucking want to be a party of their organization and were being forced to join as a precondition of employment. How 'democratic' of them...

  • Flinch||

    Unions might still be a good thing - if they had stuck to craft [pension and wages] instead of becoming an arm of one political party helping themselves to members cash year in year out. All the fluff outside of pension and collective bargaining has been killing them for a long time [at least in the private sector]. I'd like to see public sector unions be banned where civil service rules are effective and due process can occur with an unbiased third party when complaints regarding leadership arise. Would that mean arbitration instead of internal run around? Probably.

  • BYODB||


    Unions might still be a good thing...


    It could also be considered a good thing if a comet smacks the Earth and kills off all of humanity, but you'd have to have an interesting world-view to make it so. The history of unions is littered with bodies, much like the socialism that informs their existence.

  • Procyon Mustelid||

    Aren't most of those bodies littering the history of unions the bodies of union members who got killed by sheriff's posses, private strikebreakers, and like three states' militias (Colorado and one or two others) back before World War 1?

  • Procyon Rotor||

    Most? I don't have the numbers, but I wouldn't bet on it. Unions have been horribly violent, especially during strikes, and it is shocking the kind of conduct that has been excused by the courts and the NLRB as "moments of animal exuberance". For example, if a striker were to commit beatings, stabbings, bombings, or threaten the families of non-strikers, these are not legitimate reasons to refuse reinstating the worker after the strike is over, according to the NLRB.

  • Colossal Douchebag||

    This is a big f***ing deal.

  • Moridin||

    I loss for socialism in America! That is a good thing.

  • Longtobefree||

    So now we get the lawsuits from those who joined the union just so they could 'fix it from the inside'. How can they unjoin?
    When states start passing laws to allow part union - part free shops, I hope they include a provision for periodic re-certification of unions. Say every time there has been 30% turnover, or maybe every X number of years, whichever occurs first.

  • Necron 99||

    All public employee unions should be abolished. Public employees negotiating with public employees over how much of the public's monies public employees should get - what could possibly go wrong?

  • jerbigge||

    As I recall, FDR was opposed to government unions because in order to pay government workers more, it would be necessary to raise taxes.

    While I'm on the subject of unions, professional organizations require the force of the government to get their way. Strip the professions of their government support and the price of everything falls. Without prescription laws, doctors no longer enjoy a legal government enforced monopoly over access to medical drugs. Prior to 1938, we had that freedom to buy medical drugs without first paying a doctor to get a prescription to buy the same drug that previously anyone 21 or over could buy at the pharmacy of their choice.

    Personally I'm less opposed to labor unions than I am to professional organizations that do the exact same thing that labor unions do, but instead of forcing an employer to pay more, the professional organization force everyone who uses their services to pay "more".

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Good news indeed!

  • ChuckNorrisBeardFist||

    So for Tony and sockpuppet Rev who love unions:

    Your argument is that unions negotiate for you and get you better deals. That's debatable.
    How much does this negotiation cost? Who decides on who much dues there are?

    Why don't go look at Open Secrets and see the millions that unions donate (Not counting how much they spend on endorsing) Dems.

    Isn't that money above and beyond the minimum negotiation cost?

  • RPGuy16||

    I'm not sure how being forced to let a union negotiate for you exclusively doesn't violate the first amendment but being required to pay for the negotiation does. Under the court's reasoning, the entire concept of exclusive representation should be unconstitutional.

  • Flinch||

    I like it. The Beck decision needed some strengthening, as unions continuance of worker abuse had loopholes in need of being closed. But can this save Illinois from it's pending financial implosion built on an altar of corruption? Maybe not.

  • Arthur Rubin||

    What _I_ don't understand is why Beck doesn't prohibit the majority of union dues from being collected, even from members.

  • BladdyK||

    Of all the things I hate the most, public sector unions are basically at the top. Unionize against a company and shareholders, fine. Unionize against taxpayers, no f-ing way.

  • jerbigge||

    There's a simple solution to this. Unions only represent dues paying members. Anyone else isn't represented by the union. That solves the "free rider" problem. Of course if the non union workers are willing to work for less, the employer can simply replace the union members with non union people willing to work for less. Eventually the unions disappear. The only reason that unions could become what they once were was because FDR backed them with the force of government through the Wagner Act. Which allowed them to do things that previously were illegal such as occupation of the factories so that employers had to submit to the unions.willing to work for less money. There are always (with a very few exceptions) always people

    This is a lot like the issues of minimum wages. Without a minimum wage some people will be willing to work for less. In order words, workers compete with other workers for the available jobs by underbidding each other. (this is for unskilled labor almost anyone can do). Simple law of supply and demand always exists without intervention by the power of the government.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    Breaking the "Taxpayer To Union-bought Politician Pipeline".

  • jagjr||

    "The response to Janus will be critical to the long-run survival of the U.S. labor movement," the report warns.

    not the labor movement, just the pseudo-corporate standing union businesses. and good!!!

  • Darr247||

    Since this was decided on a 1st amendment basis, the unions should immediately stop representing non-members. The old ruling that unions had to represent employees whether they paid dues or not was made long before Citizens United, and to paraphrase the zomney apocalypse, Unions are People too, my friend... so they have the 1st amendment right to NOT speak on any employee's behalf if they are not members in good standing.

  • vek||

    All. The. Winning.

    A real outcome of this may well be, if one is wearing rose colored glasses, that the unions will actually have to try harder to actually please all their members or potential members. This will probably have good long term effects even for the employees... But the political impact will be huge too since the union machines are a HUGE part of where Democrat slush fund money comes from.

  • JoeB||

    The reverend doesn't get it. We'll see how that kind of behavior works out for union members after they are outnumbered by non-union co-workers.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online