The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling Wednesday against a mandatory labor union fee for nonmember public-sector employees was met with immediate criticism, some from observers in higher education who anticipate a negative impact on unions at state-funded universities.
In a 5-4 decision widely criticized as a setback to organized labor, the high court determined that forcing nonconsenting workers to pay “fair share” agency fees to public-sector unions that negotiate with the government – even to help cover expenses related to collective-bargaining matters – violates those workers’ First Amendment rights by forcing them to support political actions that may go against their person beliefs. The ruling was in the case Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Council 31 and other defendants.
“Although this decision was not unexpected, we are disappointed by the opinion of the majority,” said Dr. Rudy Fichtenbaum, president of the American Association of University Professors.
“Those AAUP chapters that have been formally recognized as unions negotiate legally enforceable contracts that incorporate AAUP principles. This ruling makes their job more difficult. …On the surface, this case may seem like a technical one that doesn’t affect many faculty,” said Fichtenbaum. “But Janus and similar court cases and legislative initiatives are part of a broad assault on public institutions and the common good. They seek to roll back protections for working people, lessen public support for civic building blocks such as education, and diminish the ability of unions to have a positive impact.”
The plaintiff in the case, Illinois state government employee and non-union member Mark Janus, challenged the constitutionality of the fee, arguing in part that it violated his First Amendment right of freedom of association because he was forced to help fund actions the union may support but that he may not. The ruling directly affects approximately two dozen states where public-sector unions currently impose such fees.
Writing the opinion for the court’s majority, Justice Samuel Alito said: “We recognize that the loss of payments from nonmembers may cause unions to experience unpleasant transition costs in the short term, and may require unions to make adjustments in order to attract and retain members. But we must weigh these disadvantages against the considerable windfall that unions have received under Abood for the last 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.”
Abood was a landmark case in 1977 in which the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against the Detroit Board of Education, upholding the right of employees in a public workplace to have a union and affirming the ability of unions to require agency fees – for nonpolitical purposes – of all workers covered through their collective bargaining.
