This summer, an upcoming U.S. Supreme Court decision could radically undermine the power of public sector unions. Janus v. AFSCME, if decided in favor of the plaintiff, Mark Janus, an employee with the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, would finally establish that employees cannot be compelled by local and state governments to pay monthly dues to unions if they don’t want to.
The current legal precedent, established in 1977, offers the concession that workers who object to the union may have their dues restricted, allocated only to those areas essential to the “collective bargaining” effort, rather than dispersed throughout the various openly political and ideological causes supported by the vast majority of unions. But some argue that collective bargaining by public employees is by its nature political, as its aims have significant effects on the taxpayer.
I do not work in a unionized industry, nor am I one of the 14.8 million Americans who is currently a member of a labor union. But this court decision poses a dire threat to my employment. I work for a nonprofit organization in California that provides pro bono legal assistance to unionized industry employees throughout the U.S. Every day, I receive movingly sincere requests for help from our nation’s hardworking teachers, steelworkers, and transit service workers and other predominantly public sector employees from the 22 states who are currently being compelled by law to contribute a portion of their monthly paychecks to their unions, regardless of their membership status.
For the many who may not know, as I certainly didn’t, only 28 states have passed right-to-work laws, which effectively release these employees from the legal obligation to pay their union dues. As for the those I assist, who reside in the other 22 states, including my home state of California, they’re out of luck unless they can provide a legally tenable reason for their objection. This is almost exclusively limited to religious objectors. To put it bluntly, if you work for a public sector industry, your only means of getting out of supporting a special-interest group you don’t want to belong to, whose positions, endorsements, and lobbying you may even find reprehensible, is if you can provide a religious “sincerely-held belief” that you are obligated to do so.
This is where I come in. With the help of a overworked volunteer civil litigation attorney, I help clients through the often drawn-out process of formulating religious objection statements to their unions, per Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That law requires employers to provide “accommodation” for religious objectors up until the point of incurring “undue hardship” upon themselves. In other words, unions are obligated, provided proof that an employee’s objection is based upon the aforementioned “sincerely held” religious belief, to allow such employees to divert their union dues to a charity instead — often limited to a list of three approved organizations preferred by the union. This may sound relatively reasonable at first, as it did to me when I first started the job, but allow me to explain why it’s absurd.
The Wall Street Journal reported back in 2016 that organized labor spent historically unprecedented amounts on the 2016 election: an estimated $35 million on federal campaigns, and a whopping estimated more than $132 million to super PACs. In other words, unionized labor is the source of a bafflingly enormous portion of Democratic campaign and special-interest finance.
A simple look at CTA.org, the website for the California Teachers Association (the union), shows on its front page an endorsement for the nationwide “school walkout” and a subsequent call to “join the CTA in wearing orange for gun violence prevention and in solidarity with students.” Rather apolitical sounding in tone, a simple click on the link beneath the endorsement transfers you to womensmarch.com. The page is inscribed in bold letters: “#ENOUGH: National School Walkout,” complete with the characteristic raised-fist symbol of leftist fame.
It isn’t a stretch to connect this recently organized “School Walkout” to the Women’s March’s openly left-wing partner organizations, or their broader political and policy aims (these are available on the “About” section of their website) which include, but are not limited to, female “reproductive rights” and “abortion,” “LGBTQIA rights,” a call to end “gender norms,” and the assertion on immigration policy that “no human being is illegal.” And with respect to the #ENOUGH campaign itself, the very first demand listed right there on the website is “Banning Assault Weapons & High Capacity Magazines.”
This is just one example of the many Democratic and left-wing platforms that public sector unions are at liberty to endorse and advertise with resources provided from members’ paychecks. In 2015, like many labor organizations, the American Federation of Teachers, the national union, announced its public endorsement of Hillary Clinton for president.
The philosophical root of the issue goes back to a somewhat removed debate concerning free speech. Particularly relevant is the case Citizens United v. FEC. In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that government cannot restrict the individual campaign expenditures of corporations, unions, nonprofits, and other associations. Much to the dismay of corporate campaign-finance reform activists, the ruling essentially affirmed the notion that money is a form of expression, and, like speech, protected by the First Amendment.
If this is the working precedent, it should be clear that the current law in California (and the other 21 non-right-to-work states) is the mirror inverse of the circumstances of Citizens United. The idea that government can compel employees to financially support an organization whose political views, endorsements, donations, and aims are in conflict with their own should be considered a violation of those employees’ right to free speech.
Moreover, even when an employee occasionally takes the necessary legal steps to see that their dues do not go directly into campaigns and super PACs, their money nevertheless otherwise sustains an organization that they believe acts against their interests. Not to mention, the current exception, which in allows opt-outs only for the religious, is arguably a form of unjust discrimination against the non-religious.
Consider this hypothetical: Imagine that public employee unions had actively endorsed Trump in 2016, and had expressed their support for the NRA during the latest controversy following the Parkland shooting. Do you think 14.8 million Americans would sit idly by while part of their paycheck was siphoned off each month to support and maintain such a union?
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Mark Janus and puts an end to compelled union fee payments by non-union members, it’s possible my job will become obsolete. But it would be worth it to see such a landmark decision for justice and freedom of speech in our country.
Madison Breshears works for Choose Charity in California.
