U.S. Supreme Court to Scrutinize Mandatory Union Fees Again

Source: Bloomberg

U.S. Supreme Court to Scrutinize Mandatory Union Fees Again

By Greg Stohr

September 28, 2017, 9:31 AM EDT

The U.S. Supreme Court said it will try for a second time to decide whether 5 million government workers can refuse to pay union fees, accepting a case that could deal a major blow to the labor movements finances and clout. ... Revisiting an issue that deadlocked them in March 2016, the justices will consider overturning a 1977 ruling that lets public-sector unions in 22 states demand fees from workers who arent members. Those so-called agency fees are designed to pay for union representation on such matters as pay negotiations.

Union critics say the mandatory fees violate the Constitutions First Amendment, forcing workers to support unions that dont share their priorities on matters of public importance. The court will hear an appeal from Mark Janus, an Illinois government employee challenging a state law that allows agency fees. ... "Janus and millions of other public employees are effectively being required to support a government-appointed lobbyist," his lawyers at the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation argued in the appeal.

The 1977 ruling, known as Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, said agency fees were constitutional so long as workers didnt have to cover the cost of political or ideological activities. ... Two years ago in a case involving California teachers, the courts conservative wing had appeared to be on the brink of overturning Abood. But Justice Antonin Scalias February 2016 death left the group without a fifth vote, and the court instead split 4-4. Justice Neil Gorsuchs arrival on the court may mean the effort to topple Abood is back on track.
....

The court will hear arguments early next year and rule by June. The case is Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 31, 16-1466.

Read more: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-28/mandatory-union-fees-again-draw-u-s-supreme-court-scrutiny

---

Retweeted by David Fahrenthold: https://twitter.com/Fahrenthold

#scotus agrees to hear union fees case that labor dreads. Court split 4-4 last time case was heard, after Scalia died before ruling.

Link to tweet

* * * * *

Supreme Court to hear new challenge to labor unions

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-to-hear-new-challenge-to-labor-unions/2017/09/28/8b63b732-a453-11e7-b573-8ec86cdfe1ed_story.html

By Mark Sherman??AP September 28 at 9:57 AM

WASHINGTON A Supreme Court with a reconstituted conservative majority is taking on a new case with the potential to financially cripple Democratic-leaning labor unions that represent government workers. The justices deadlocked 4-4 in a similar case last year. ... The high court agreed Thursday to again consider a free-speech challenge from workers who object to paying money to unions they dont support. ... The court could decide to overturn a 40-year-old Supreme Court ruling that allows public sector unions to collect fees from non-members to cover the costs of negotiating contracts for all employees.

The latest appeal is from a state employee in Illinois. It was filed at the Supreme Court just two months after Justice Neil Gorsuch filled the high court seat that had been vacant since Justice Antonin Scalias death. ... The stakes are high. Union membership in the U.S. declined to just 10.7 percent of the workforce last year, and the ranks of private-sector unions have been especially hard hit.

The Illinois case involves Mark Janus, a state employee who says Illinois law violates his free speech rights by requiring him to pay fees subsidizing a union he doesnt support, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. About half the states have similar laws covering so-called fair share fees that cover bargaining costs for non-members.

Janus is seeking to overturn a 1977 Supreme Court case, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, that said public workers who refuse to join a union can still be required to pay for bargaining costs, as long as the fees dont go toward political purposes. The arrangement was supposed to prevent non-members from free riding, since the union has a legal duty to represent all workers. ... A federal appeals court in Chicago rejected Janus claim in March. Gorsuch was confirmed in April and the appeal was filed in June.