Supreme Court to hear case that could lose unions money, members

SAN FRANCISCO -- Union membership in the United States has declined steadily in recent decades, but it remains plentiful among public employees like teachers and social workers. They're more than five times as likely as their private-sector counterparts to belong to a union.

That situation is likely to change, however, because of a case to be argued Monday in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The justices will hear arguments on behalf of a child-support worker for the state of Illinois, and the Trump administration, challenging the fees that public-employee unions charge to those who choose to be nonmembers for the cost of representing them at the bargaining table over pay and working conditions. Fees charged to nonmembers are allowed by laws in 22 states, including California.

The court unanimously upheld those so-called fair-share fees in 1977, reasoning that while unions could not impose their political views on nonmembers -- and thus could not charge them for the costs of lobbying and other political activities -- they could recoup the costs of basic representation, which the unions are required to provide to all workers by federal law. The fair-share fees equal 60 to 70 percent of regular union dues.

The 1977 ruling has come under attack by conservative groups such as the National Right to Work Foundation, which represents the current plaintiff. And they have gained allies on the court in recent years, led by Justice Samuel Alito, who has argued in several rulings that every aspect of a public union's dealings with the government is political and that nonmembers, protected by the constitutional guarantee of free speech, shouldn't have to pay for it.

The court appeared to be on the verge of repealing the ruling two years ago in a case brought by nonunion teachers in California. But a month after the hearing, and before a new ruling could be issued, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia died, leaving his colleagues deadlocked 4-4.

The unions' reprieve probably will not last long. President Trump's appointment of the equally conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch to succeed Scalia has set the stage for Monday's hearing of the suit by Mark Janus, an Illinois state employee who objects to paying any fees to the union that represents him.

``I'm not against unions,'' Janus told the Associated Press. ``But the right to say no to unions is just as important as the right to say yes,'' and, he added, the wages and benefits this union seeks would cause financial harm to the state.

Even though the earlier ruling was supposed to prohibit use of nonmembers' fees for political activities, Trump's Justice Department told the court that to require employees like Janus to subsidize any of their unions' costs ``is to force him to support private political and ideological viewpoints with which he may strongly disagree.''

If those views prevail, as most legal commentators expect, a 5-4 ruling by the end of June will outlaw the fees in 22 states, which have about 5 million public employees. In addition to losing fees from hundreds of thousands of nonmembers, the unions will likely lose some of their current members.

``Why should they pay, when they get the same conditions and benefits without paying?'' asked William Gould, a Stanford law professor and former chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, who has joined other labor law professors in a court filing supporting the unions.

When Wisconsin, a onetime labor stronghold now led by Republicans, passed a ``right-to-work'' law banning mandatory union membership and fees, Gould said, membership dropped at least 4 percent.

And the political consequences are also predictable.

``This will shut off one of the main avenues for contributions to the Democratic Party,'' Gould said, noting similar impacts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Indiana that have coincided with a decline in union membership. Unions are also a major source of Democratic campaign workers.

And that's another reason nonmembers shouldn't have to support them, said Daniel DiSalvo of the conservative Manhattan Institute.

``Union political activity is so one-sided,'' and mandatory fees are like being ``forced to associate with a political party,'' DiSalvo said. Although the 1977 ruling bars unions from using nonmembers' fees for political activity, he said, that line is often hard to draw, and the Constitution protects freedom of association as well as speech.

For the unions, a repeal of the ruling would allow nonmembers to become ``free riders.''

``The case, solicited and bankrolled by billionaires and corporate executives, is intended to weaken public sector unions by encouraging employees ... to refuse to pay dues, while they enjoy the rights and benefits of a union contract and representation,'' said National Nurses United, which plans rallies Thursday in nine California communities, including Martinez and San Mateo, in protest of the anticipated ruling.

That's not how Elizabeth ``Bitsy'' Galaska, a nonunion teacher in Birdsboro, Pa., sees it. She is a plaintiff in a suit, similar to Janus' case, challenging fees charged by the state's chapter of the National Education Association.

``I never asked the union to work for me,'' she said in an interview. ``I'm not really a free rider. I'm more of a forced rider.''