Skip to comments.How Unions Are Already Gearing Up for a Supreme Court Loss
Posted on 10/09/2017 7:55:35 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Late last week, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will add a case critical to the future of public-sector unions to its docket. With President Donald Trump's appointment of conservative-leaning Justice Neil Gorsuch, many expect the court to rule against the unions.
Such a decision would energize the recent resurgence of state laws that effectively reduce the power of unions in both the public and private sector. Expecting the worst, unions are already preparing for a potential exodus of members and a loss of revenue.
Id place a bet that this doesnt bode well for public-sector unions, says Patrick Flavin, a political scientist at Baylor University who frequently writes about labor union politics and policy.
The lead plaintiff, Mark Janus, is a child support worker in Illinois who argues his free speech rights are being violated by the requirement that he pay the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the largest public employee union in the country, even though he chose not to join it and does not support its political views and positions.
Illinois is currently one of 22 states where nonunion members still have to pay so-called agency fees to unions that negotiate on their behalf.
If the Supreme Court rules that making agency fees mandatory is unconstitutional, unions in those states fear the loss of revenue from existing nonunion members and the loss of more members, who could quit unions if granted the right to avoid the paycheck deduction. Such a scenario would weaken unions' bargaining power and their political clout.
It is an enormously big deal, says Harvard law professor Benjamin Sachs, who often writes about labor issues. Unions have to provide services and representation equally to everyone in a bargaining unit. But if you can get those services for free, a lot of people wont pay them. You have a classic free-rider situation.
Public-sector union membership has already been on the decline. Between 2000 and 2016, it dropped about 8 percent, to 34.4 percent, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Still, that's far greater than in the private sector where only 6.5 percent of employees belonged to a union in 2016, according to the BLS.
The shrinkage of unions can partially be attributed to the recent rise of "right-to-work" laws, which prohibit unions -- private or public sector, depending on the state -- from forcing people to pay dues. Of the 28 states that have passed right-to-work laws, six did it in the last five years. (Most of the rest passed this legislation in the 1940s and 1950s.) In general, the states with the lowest union membership have right-to-work laws.
The right to work is only one of a series of recent attacks on public-sector unions. There have also been ongoing efforts to curtail collective bargaining, which gives unions the right to negotiate with management over wage and other employee-related issues. The passage of Act 10 in Wisconsin in 2011, for example, severely restricted collective bargaining for most state and local government employees. This year, Iowa passed similar legislation, which is now the topic of a union lawsuit.
An anti-union ruling in the Supreme Court case, called Janus v. AFSCME, would mean that all states would, in effect, be right-to-work states for the public sector. In states where collective bargaining is permitted, all employees in a bargaining unit would still be covered by negotiated agreements, but nonmembers wouldnt have to pay the union for services rendered on their behalf.
While awaiting a decision in the Janus case, unions arent sitting quietly on the sidelines. They are already beginning to wage a campaign to persuade employees about the importance of union membership and of the negative consequences of being a "freeloader."
If unions can convince all their members to continue to pay dues voluntarily, theyll be able to survive, says Sachs, the law professor.
Some, however, think the unions will have to do more than that to gain or keep members.
In order for the public-sector labor movement to recover, theyd have to pretty substantially change the model theyre operating under, says Alexander Hertel-Fernandez, an assistant professor of international and public affairs at Columbia University. One strategy is to become much more service-oriented.
To entice people to stay or join, unions could expand their services to include additional low-cost insurance, counseling services to help with on-the-job stress or training programs to help advance careers. This has already been a strategy in some right-to-work states, says Hertel-Fernandez.
But if an anti-union decision is reached, unions may not have the resources to offer more services. In fact, according to Sachs, they might consider cutting off some of their services to nonmembers -- like refusing to provide help with grievances.
Oral arguments in this case are expected to happen in early 2018, with a decision in the late spring or early summer.
I’d rather talk about Kennedy quitting or Ginsberg croaking.
Sorry folks. 3rd beer.
I’ll state the obvious.
There should be no public sector unions. Period.
I could see both of those happening before this case lands there. My mother is the same age as Justice Ginsburg and as bad as she looks, Ginsburg looks worse.
A pretty smart fella once told me companies “get the kind of union they deserve”. Maybe that’s true, and if so maybe it’s true for the public sector as well. Treat employees right and the need for a union disappears. I can’t imagine anyone making the case that public sector workers “need” a union at least in the current era. The taxpayers deserve a break.
IAM, IBEW, and Teamsters myself. Liars, thieves and thugs.
The things a guy has to do to put food on the table...
Oh, Oh yes, I was there alright!!! (in the 60's that is)
Unions may have been useful back before are the reform of labor laws.
Now the state does all the things Unions were primarily needed for.
Safety, pay protected for labor, overtime, worker’s comp.
There is no excuse for public employees’ unions. They are not engaged in a business that must have a profit so there is no limit to their demands and no incentive for their agencies not to grant them. It’s just taxpayer money and as we all know that well is unlimited.
“before are” should be “before”
Public sector unions are normally hand in glove with govt management. They don’t help the workers one white. It’s all a big scam like 90% of the rest of govt.
I would too.
Maybe we should get rid of the corporate veil too. No more capitalistic profits and socialized losses. I don’t believe corporations are mentioned in Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. The Spanish label corporations the abbreviation of S.A meaning anonymous society - much more honest description.
She was dx’d with pancreatic cancer some time ago. I’d like to know the names of her doctors and the meds she’s on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.