The Supreme Court’s decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is a major victory for millions of public-sector workers. The Supreme Court ruled that these employees cannot be forced to make payments to unions with which they do not wish to associate. As Justice Samuel Alito explained in his opinion, “This arrangement violates the free speech rights of nonmembers by compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern.”
Workers like Mark Janus, who bravely withstood heated attacks from Big Labor as he took his case all the way to the Supreme Court, will receive more take-home pay. Money will not be taken from their earnings and sent to unions that may advance political interests contrary to theirs. Janus and his counterparts across the country will be able to decide for themselves whether to join a union and which political causes to support with their hard-earned dollars.
Some blue-state progressives, expecting a Janus loss, had discussed potential methods to undercut the outcome of the case by proposing legislation that would automatically sign up all new employees for union membership unless they affirmatively opted out. Further efforts were proposed to create only tiny windows of time during which employees could opt out. Fortunately, Alito threw cold water on these ideas, making clear that payments to unions may be made only if an employee opts in and affirmatively consents to them.
But, government employee unions and the politicians they support have proposed other ways to circumvent the ruling by forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for union activities. Lawmakers in Hawaii introduced H.B. 923, which would create a public employees’ collective bargaining fund in the state treasury. Each year, money would be disbursed from the fund to the union. Instead of paying the salaries of public-sector workers, taxpayers will be funding the union.
In Vermont, legislators introduced S. 238, which would require workers to reimburse unions if the union represents them in a grievance proceeding, even if they did not want to be represented in this way. Since the state pays their salary, the state can make sure the money comes right out of their paycheck.
These bills are two examples of anti-worker freedom bills that are trying to undermine the Janus ruling. Like many bills at the state level, these have the potential to slide under the radar until the last minute. Accordingly, it is vital to raise awareness now about the consequences that would result from these efforts.
First, funding unions with taxpayer dollars would require either raising taxes or cutting vital government services, and it would necessarily lower salaries and benefits for public-sector workers. Taxpayers would pay more and get less; union leadership would get more for nothing.
Second, it would further pervert the entire nature and purpose of unions, which are supposed to be built on the principle of voluntary association. Forcing nonmembers, like Janus, to pay fees to unions has been found to violate the Constitution. Forcing all taxpayers to line the pockets of unions is highly likely to encroach on free speech.
Third, and most disturbingly, it would force all taxpayers, not just people like Janus, to fund union politics. The political priorities of government unions are not the priorities of the public. As retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy stated when the Janus case was argued, what public-sector union leaders want is a “a greater size workforce … enormous government … increasing bonded indebtedness … increasing taxes.” These objectives have devastated the fiscal solvency of Janus’ home state of Illinois. Taxpayers cannot be forced to financially support the unions that are responsible for the bloated budgets and public-sector pension crises that plague states and localities across the country. State and local unfunded pension liabilities exceed $6 trillion.
The Supreme Court has just freed all public-sector employees to decide for themselves whether they want to join a union and how they want to spend their own money.
If public-sector unions want to avoid a decline in membership and revenue, they should adapt to changing times, win workers over by offering superior benefits and services, refrain from engaging in political advocacy on behalf of people who disapprove of that advocacy, and make sacrifices like everyone else has had to do as state and local governments grapple with budget challenges. States that enact legislation allowing the funding of unions with public money would betray taxpayers and government employees alike and violate the independence and integrity of unions themselves.
Spencer Chretien (@SpencerChretien) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is state policy manager at Citizens Against Government Waste.
