SCOTUS rules against unions, compelling dues on nonmembers
The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a shocking blow Wednesday to unions representing millions of the nation’s public employees, stating that government workers who choose not to join a union cannot be compelled to pay a share of union dues for covering the cost of negotiating contracts.
photo/ jessica45
This decision strikes down a 1977 ruling, where the Court said that non-union employees could be required to pay a portion of union dues, known as agency fees, to cover the cost of collective bargaining and prevent “free riders” — workers who get the benefits of a union contract without paying for it.
Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in the case of Janus v. American Federation of State, Municipal and County Employees, a case Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner helped launch
“This procedure violates the First Amendment and cannot continue,” Associate Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion. “Neither an agency fee nor any other payment to the union may be deducted from a non-member’s wages, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay.”
The unions say 5 million government employees in 24 states and the District of Columbia would be affected by this ruling.
Alito said while overturning past decisions should be rare, this issue justified it.
“There are very strong reasons in this case. Fundamental free speech rights are at stake,” he said.
The key plaintiff was Mark Janus, an Illinois state employee, who pays about $550 annually to the powerful public-sector union known as AFSCME. While not a member of the union, he is required under state law to hand over a weekly portion of his paycheck — which he says is a violation of his constitutional rights.
“I work for Health and Family Services, and I’m forced to pay money to a union that then supports political causes that I don’t agree with,” Janus told Fox News.
President Trump cheered the court decision on Twitter, writing: “Supreme Court rules in favor of non-union workers who are now, as an example, able to support a candidate of his or her choice without having those who control the Union deciding for them. Big loss for the coffers of the Democrats!”
