Public employee unions in 28 states now legally force an estimated 12 million non-union members to pay “agency” fees in lieu of membership dues. The fees are meant to recognize that all employees benefit from union bargaining regardless if they are union members. That?s a reasonable argument, of course, but Big Labor?s lawyers have successfully argued for decades that virtually everything a union does anywhere benefits everybody, so non-members should have to pay the fees and shut up. But the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Daniel Locke v. Edward Karass, a case from Maine in which the justices have an opportunity to uphold every employee?s right not to be compelled to support political and social causes with which they disagree.
The facts of the case, which was brought with support from the National Right to Work Committee Foundation, are simple: Locke is one of 20 Maine state employees who found that their compulsory agency fees to the Maine State Employees Association were being used to fund union lawsuits and bargaining in other states via a funding pool administered by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Locke and his like-minded colleagues objected to having to pay the fees because they knew the SEIU aggressively pushes a political agenda outside of Maine, including political campaigning, lobbying government at all levels, litigation against employers, media advocacy and other non-bargaining activities. Every dollar taken from Locke to pay for union litigation outside Maine freed up a dollar to be spent on SEIU?s political agenda.
Recommended Stories
Sounds like an open-and-shut case, right? After all, Thomas Jefferson said it is “sinful and tyrannical” to “compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves.” And just last year, the court ruled that public employee unions must first get permission from individual members before using their dues for political activities. Justice Antonin Scalia declared that “unions have no constitutional entitlement to the fees of non-member employees.” But things are never so simple in the nation?s capital. U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement has submitted a brief in the case in which he argues that public employee unions can indeed use agency fees to pay their share of a litigation pool. But, he says, doing so must further the government?s interest in keeping the peace in the workplace. He also says the union must give reasonable assurance that the pool doesn?t indirectly aid non-litigation activities. In other words, as long as there is peace in the workplace and wink-winks from the union, President Bush?s solicitor general will be happy. And this president is anti-union?
