Unions must stand on their own
What are Massachusetts public labor unions afraid of?
If union leadership is doing such a great job for their members, why are they trying to get the Democrat-controlled state Legislature to bypass the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in the Janus case? Equally worrisome is why are House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo and Senate President Karen Spilka so eager to oblige the union brass?
At the heart of the issue is the court’s ruling earlier this month in a highly watched case Janus vs. the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled it is unconstitutional to require government employees to pay union fees. The decision overturned a 40year precedent. It means that union members can opt out of the weekly or monthly dues paid into the union treasury — money basically used by union brass to support its own political agenda.
Union bosses, naturally, are mortified. They see this as a huge loss of revenue. Of course, politicians who benefit from union endorsements and campaign donations are upset, too. In Massachusetts, public unions lean toward financing Democratic candidates — whether membership likes it or not. There’s a connection. The Janus decision, however, serves to level the playing field. Maybe now candidates of vision — rather than those touting the ideological Democratic Party line — can get their foot in the door. Maybe more moderate Republicans with fiscal fervor and innovative ideas can gain ground.
At the very least, the Supreme Court ruling should give union bosses pause to reflect on what their membership really wants in return for their dues, like advocacy for bread-and-butter issues that affect their families.
But will that happen? Not if the Legislature bends over backward to keep the union money train going — as appears to be the case. And that would be wrong. Yet before we get to Beacon Hill’s good ol’ boy network, some background.
This important case made it to the Supreme Court only because of the heroic efforts of Mark Janus, an Illinois government child-support specialist who does not belong to the public union and fought its $45 monthly fee for covering him in contract negotiations. In briefs filed with the court, he said his dues were financing the union’s political activities — some of which he disagreed with — thus violating his free speech right. The court sensibly agreed.
Yet Speaker DeLeo has other notions in mind. “We as a House will be taking some action ... to soften the blow, shall we say, relative to our unions here in Massachusetts,” DeLeo told reporters recently after a Democratic caucus at the State House. He said the Janus decision “could be quite a bit of loss in terms of revenue for our unions.” DeLeo is treading on shallow ground here. If he tries to usurp the Supreme Court’s decision, he could soon find the Legislature entangled in its own Janus-type lawsuit. Plus, his approach only serves to strengthen the belief that the Democratic Party is an arm of the state’s government unions — and vice versa.
DeLeo and other Democrats should be only too happy to shed the yoke of union leadership, which regularly exerts undue and misguided pressure on politicians to do their bidding — against the interest of a majority of the state’s nonunion workers and taxpayers. The Pioneer Institute, a conservative think tank that signed onto an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to hear the Janus case, said it best: “Pioneer believes that the constitutional guarantee of freedom of association means that just as union membership should never be banned, no one should ever be compelled to contribute to an organization with which s/he does not agree.”
DeLeo’s job is to represent all citizens and workers fairly and not to kowtow to special interests. Let the unions get better at what they are supposed to do — serving their memberships openly and honestly — and just maybe they’ll increase their ranks on their own — without government’s helping hand.