The problem with mandatory union fees
John Roberts
Mark Janus is a child support specialist for the state of Illinois who   like many Illinoisans   has some disagreements with the policies of the American Federation of State   County and Municipal Employees . Most Illinoisans   however   are not required to pay dues to the union . Though he has chosen not to join AFSCME   Janus is nonetheless required under Illinois law to pay fees to the union that represents state workers . He would like to stop doing so   rather than support positions and activities that conflict with his views . And the U . S . Supreme Court   which heard oral arguments in the case Monday   looks inclined to let him . Those state employees who decline to join the union are exempt from that portion of dues that go to finance its political action . But they are forced to pay “ fair share ” fees that supposedly reflect the benefit they get from the union ’ s collective bargaining . The rationale is that if workers could opt out of any payments   those doing so would be “ free riders ”: They would reap the pay and conditions the union negotiates — while paying members bear the union ’ s costs . There are obvious problems with AFSCME ’ s argument for compulsory fees . The first is that the union has the discretion to decide what counts as political spending and what doesn ’ t . Janus ’ lawyers note that these claims “ turn   to a large degree   on self - interested judgments by union officials about how they and other union employees spend their time .” More basic   though   is that when a union negotiates on behalf of public workers   everything it does is inherently political . When AFSCME pushes for higher wages or changes in work rules   it is putting itself on one side of a political issue . In a parallel case from California two years ago    Chief Justice John Roberts  asked the lawyer for the state to name a topic of collective bargaining that has nothing to do with such matters . When  he  cited “ mileage reimbursements  ”  Roberts  disagreed : “ It ’ s all money . If you give more mileage expenses ( to teachers )  the amount that ’ s going to be allocated to public education as opposed to public housing   welfare benefits — that ’ s always a public policy issue .” Mandatory fees require dissenting nonmembers to support beliefs they reject . But the right of free speech   as the court long has recognized   includes the freedom not to speak . To force someone to pay for the advancement of political positions without his or her consent is incompatible with the First Amendment . Union officials say losing the revenue from compelled payments would weaken their negotiating power . But they also fear losing   yes   political power . AFSCME ’ s Naomi Walker has warned that a loss in this case “ could undermine political operations that assist the Democratic Party ” and damage “ the progressive infrastructure in this country   from think tanks to advocacy organizations .” But why should the needs of union - aligned groups take precedence over Janus ’ right to decide which causes to financially support ? What if Illinois law required certain workers to contribute to groups that provide useful services but also donate heavily to Republican causes ? Writing in the Tribune two years ago   Janus argued   “ Government unions have pushed for government spending that made the state ’ s fiscal situation worse . How is that good for the people of the state ? Or   for that matter   my fellow union members who face the threat of layoffs or their pension funds someday running dry ?” For Janus to win   the court would probably have to overrule a 1977 decision that upheld such fees . The justices came close in the 2016 California case   shortly after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia   deadlocking 4 - 4 . The addition of conservative Neil Gorsuch seems likely to provide the deciding vote for the reversal here . In 2014   the Supreme Court said that “ except in perhaps the rarest of circumstances   no person in this country may be compelled to subsidize speech by a third party that he or she does not wish to support .” This case is a chance for the justices to say : And we mean it . Why I don ' t want to pay union dues » Why am I paying union dues when the union won ’ t protect me from sexual harassment ? Rauner says Illinois falls short on job creation . How does the state stack up against its neighbors ? » Join the discussion on Twitter @ Trib_Ed_Board and on Facebook .
Mark Janus is a child support specialist for the state of Illinois who   like many Illinoisans   has some disagreements with the policies of the American Federation of State   County and Municipal Employees . Most Illinoisans   however   are not required to pay dues to the union . Though he has chosen not to join AFSCME   Janus is nonetheless required under Illinois law to pay fees to the union that represents state workers . He would like to stop doing so   rather than support positions and activities that conflict with his views . And the U . S . Supreme Court   which heard oral arguments in the case Monday   looks inclined to let him . Those state employees who decline to join the union are exempt from that portion of dues that go to finance its political action . But they are forced to pay “ fair share ” fees that supposedly reflect the benefit they get from the union ’ s collective bargaining . The rationale is that if workers could opt out of any payments   those doing so would be “ free riders ”: They would reap the pay and conditions the union negotiates — while paying members bear the union ’ s costs . There are obvious problems with AFSCME ’ s argument for compulsory fees . The first is that the union has the discretion to decide what counts as political spending and what doesn ’ t . Janus ’ lawyers note that these claims “ turn   to a large degree   on self - interested judgments by union officials about how they and other union employees spend their time .” More basic   though   is that when a union negotiates on behalf of public workers   everything it does is inherently political . When AFSCME pushes for higher wages or changes in work rules   it is putting itself on one side of a political issue . In a parallel case from California two years ago    [TGT]asked the lawyer for the state to name a topic of collective bargaining that has nothing to do with such matters . When  [TGT]  cited “ mileage reimbursements  ”  [TGT]disagreed : “ It ’ s all money . If you give more mileage expenses ( to teachers )  the amount that ’ s going to be allocated to public education as opposed to public housing   welfare benefits — that ’ s always a public policy issue .” Mandatory fees require dissenting nonmembers to support beliefs they reject . But the right of free speech   as the court long has recognized   includes the freedom not to speak . To force someone to pay for the advancement of political positions without his or her consent is incompatible with the First Amendment . Union officials say losing the revenue from compelled payments would weaken their negotiating power . But they also fear losing   yes   political power . AFSCME ’ s Naomi Walker has warned that a loss in this case “ could undermine political operations that assist the Democratic Party ” and damage “ the progressive infrastructure in this country   from think tanks to advocacy organizations .” But why should the needs of union - aligned groups take precedence over Janus ’ right to decide which causes to financially support ? What if Illinois law required certain workers to contribute to groups that provide useful services but also donate heavily to Republican causes ? Writing in the Tribune two years ago   Janus argued   “ Government unions have pushed for government spending that made the state ’ s fiscal situation worse . How is that good for the people of the state ? Or   for that matter   my fellow union members who face the threat of layoffs or their pension funds someday running dry ?” For Janus to win   the court would probably have to overrule a 1977 decision that upheld such fees . The justices came close in the 2016 California case   shortly after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia   deadlocking 4 - 4 . The addition of conservative Neil Gorsuch seems likely to provide the deciding vote for the reversal here . In 2014   the Supreme Court said that “ except in perhaps the rarest of circumstances   no person in this country may be compelled to subsidize speech by a third party that he or she does not wish to support .” This case is a chance for the justices to say : And we mean it . Why I don ' t want to pay union dues » Why am I paying union dues when the union won ’ t protect me from sexual harassment ? Rauner says Illinois falls short on job creation . How does the state stack up against its neighbors ? » Join the discussion on Twitter @ Trib_Ed_Board and on Facebook .