Subject: BREAKING: Janus Decides Forced Union Dues/Fees Illegal for Public Sector Unions
Today, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that state public sector unions may no longer compel employees to pay money to them as a condition of employment. It is not hyperbole to say this is the most important labor decision in the last quarter-century.
In Janus v. AFSCME the Court majority (Alito wrote the opinion joined by Roberts, Gorsuch, Thomas and Kennedy) issued a sweeping opinion that overruled its troubling 1977 Abood decision. Public sector labor unions are now required to have clear permission (basically a waiver of first amendment rights) to collect fees from employees it represents. The decision also raises serious questions about whether the agency-fee payer model in place in every non-right to work state is workable.
The decision rejected a number of arguments unions have used to support forced dues and fee payments for decades. The Court found it is basically impossible to distinguish between public and private speech when it comes to speech by public sector unions. Therefore most union speech - at the bargaining table and away from it - implicates the first amendment and employees who object to paying for that speech cannot be compelled to do so.
The court also rejected common fairness arguments unions make about the so-called "free-rider" problem. They noted that unions receive a huge economic benefit from exclusive representation status and that having to represent objectors is a fair 1 The Court noted:
"But we must weigh these disadvantages against the considerable windfall that unions have received under Abood for the past 41 years. It is hard to estimate how many billions of dollars have been taken from nonmembers and transferred to public-sector unions in violation of the First Amendment. Those unconstitutional exactions cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely."
In the decision the Court also noted that the agency-fee model outlined in Abood (and also used in the Court's Beck decision which applies to private-sector workers) is inherently unworkable. The Court suggested it is nearly impossible for employees to exercise their right to stop paying for speech they find objectionable. This signals a potential to expand the protections under Beck, and hopefully will discourage unions from seeking state protection (like they already have in California) to prevent potential objectors from learning about their free speech rights under Janus.
Stay tuned for further analysis of this important decision.
In Janus v. AFSCME the Court majority (Alito wrote the opinion joined by Roberts, Gorsuch, Thomas and Kennedy) issued a sweeping opinion that overruled its troubling 1977 Abood decision. Public sector labor unions are now required to have clear permission (basically a waiver of first amendment rights) to collect fees from employees it represents. The decision also raises serious questions about whether the agency-fee payer model in place in every non-right to work state is workable.
The decision rejected a number of arguments unions have used to support forced dues and fee payments for decades. The Court found it is basically impossible to distinguish between public and private speech when it comes to speech by public sector unions. Therefore most union speech - at the bargaining table and away from it - implicates the first amendment and employees who object to paying for that speech cannot be compelled to do so.
The court also rejected common fairness arguments unions make about the so-called "free-rider" problem. They noted that unions receive a huge economic benefit from exclusive representation status and that having to represent objectors is a fair 1 The Court noted:
"But we must weigh these disadvantages against the considerable windfall that unions have received under Abood for the past 41 years. It is hard to estimate how many billions of dollars have been taken from nonmembers and transferred to public-sector unions in violation of the First Amendment. Those unconstitutional exactions cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely."
In the decision the Court also noted that the agency-fee model outlined in Abood (and also used in the Court's Beck decision which applies to private-sector workers) is inherently unworkable. The Court suggested it is nearly impossible for employees to exercise their right to stop paying for speech they find objectionable. This signals a potential to expand the protections under Beck, and hopefully will discourage unions from seeking state protection (like they already have in California) to prevent potential objectors from learning about their free speech rights under Janus.
Stay tuned for further analysis of this important decision.