The union spigot

Forced contributions may soon run dry

MANY people may not be aware that public-sector employees can be forced to pay union fees as a condition of their employment — even if they aren’t union members.

As Reason.com explains, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 40 years ago, in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, that non-union public employees should still have to contribute their “fair share” to the union coffers because those “free riders” also benefited from the union’s collective bargaining efforts.

It’s not hard to see how four decades of mandatory dues from nonmembers has helped public-sector unions amass a mountain of cash. And as the Powerline Blog notes, these unions are the chief source of financial support for the Democratic Party and many liberal endeavors.

But the spigot may soon run dry — and labor bosses are in panic mode.

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, which concerned a public school teacher, Rebecca Friedrichs, who refused to join the union and objected on First Amendment grounds to being forced to fork over dues. “Just as the government cannot compel political speech or association generally, it cannot mandate political speech or association as a condition of employment,” Ms. Friedrichs’ lawyers argued.

But the high court had only eight members at the time. In the wake of Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, Senate Republicans refused to consider President Barack Obama’s nominee, leaving the panel short one justice. The result was a 4-4 tie in the Friedrichs case, leaving intact a lower court ruling in the union’s favor.

The victory may be short-lived, however, as Supreme Court observers believe the panel is likely to take on a similar case this fall.

The dispute involves Mark Janus, a nonunion government worker from Illinois, who — like Ms. Friedrichs — objects to being forced to fund political speech and activity against his will. The high court may decide by the end of this month whether to hear the case.

With Trump selection Neil Gorsuch now on the bench, labor activists are worried. The website Hot Air reports that some unions are already taking preventive measures in anticipation of losing the Janus case. In Minnesota, for example, the state teachers union is trying to convince its 86,000 educators to sign forms that will automatically renew their union dues each year. By signing, Hot Air notes, teachers would forfeit any protections they had as a result of the Janus decision and would have only a seven-day window each year to submit written notice that they no longer wished to contribute to the union.

Similarly, Clark County teachers may drop their union membership only during a two-week period each July.

Unions should be free to raise money, of course. But forcing nonmembers to support union political activity with which they disagree is wrong on many levels and runs counter to the principle of freedom of association grounded in the First Amendment’s guarantees regarding speech, assembly and petitioning.

The U.S. Supreme Court should hear the Janus case and rule appropriately.

The Review-journal welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should not exceed 275 words and must include the writer’s name, mailing address and phone number. Submissions may be edited and become the property of the Review-journal.

Email letters@reviewjournal.com Mail Letters to the Editor

P.O. Box 70

Las Vegas, NV 89125

Fax 702-383-4676 laws and policies should be wiped off the books. Think of the tax dollars we would save.