Seven years after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Janus v. AFSCME decision established that public employees cannot be compelled to pay union dues, a troubling pattern has emerged: unions nationwide are systematically obstructing workers’ rights to resign.
Consider Chaquan May, a California in-home caregiver, who has spent more than two years trying to resign from SEIU Local 2015. She alleges union organizers once locked her in a room and intimidated her into signing a membership card. Despite repeated attempts to resign, the union continues to ignore her requests.
May is now part of a lawsuit challenging these coercive tactics. She’s not alone.
EMPLOYEES SAY LABOR UNION THREATENED FINES AFTER THEY RESIGNED
Across the country, public-sector unions, and in some cases, state governments, have constructed a system in which a worker’s right to say no exists in name only.
Early on, public employees seeking to resign from their unions were advised to send opt-out requests directly to the union. That approach proved ineffective.
Workers frequently reported that their resignation requests were ignored or dismissed. Some unions claimed that the letters didn’t use the correct legal language and were therefore invalid. Others demanded “exit interviews” or imposed arbitrary, narrow opt-out windows.
In response, resignation forms began to be sent via certified mail, with tracking and delivery confirmation. Unions adapted again, this time refusing to accept delivery.
To date, at least 10 different unions across eight states have simply refused to acknowledge their members’ mailed-in opt-out requests.
In Washington State, Teamsters Locals 117, 760, and 763 have repeatedly declined to acknowledge receipt of certified resignation forms when they bear return addresses associated with organizations known to help workers exit their union.
Even more troubling, Washington law requires that all resignation notices be sent to the union, not to the state. Meanwhile, the state continues to deduct dues from employees’ paychecks until it is directed by the union to stop.
Under this arrangement, a public-sector union not only profits from member dues but controls the only mechanism for ending them.
This strategy is not unique to the Evergreen State. In Nevada, public school teachers are permitted to opt out of their union only during a narrow 15-day window each July — not coincidentally right in the middle of summer break.
This year, when opt-out forms were sent via certified mail, the union refused delivery.
A process server then attempted hand-delivery, but that too was rejected.
Forms were ultimately sent via first-class mail without return addresses to avoid detection and refusal.
These unions defend their actions by claiming they are private entities, not government actors. But that doesn’t stop them from relying on the state to enforce their will.
In most states, governments only act when the union gives its approval. If the union refuses to acknowledge a resignation, the employer continues to deduct dues.
Unions have become the gatekeepers of workers’ constitutional rights.
The result is a deliberate contravention of Janus, which held that no public employee may be compelled to subsidize union activity without affirmative consent.
Instead of honoring this principle, unions have erected procedural barriers and used legal loopholes to preserve revenue and limit accountability.
The consequences are tangible. Employees like May face stonewalling and intimidation. Others are trapped by narrow resignation periods or face logistical games designed to prevent successful opt-outs.
In the meantime, the money keeps flowing to unions, against the employees’ will.
Legal challenges have emerged across the country, but lower courts have disagreed about whether unions can be held accountable for these tactics.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that public-sector unions are not acting “under color of state law” when they exercise the power state government gives them to demand agencies withhold dues, effectively shielding them from civil rights liability under Section 1983.
The Supreme Court now has an opportunity to clarify what Janus requires in practice.
In Freedom Foundation v. Teamsters, the justices are considering whether to review a Ninth Circuit ruling that upheld unions’ ability to evade accountability while directing state governments to seize wages from objecting employees.
The question before the Court is clear: Can public-sector unions that control access to the state’s payroll systems avoid responsibility for violating workers’ First Amendment rights?
UNIONS CUT CHECKS TO THIS WATCHDOG GROUP IN EXCHANGE FOR SUPPORT
Janus should have already answered that question. But constitutional rights mean little without enforcement.
For millions of public employees across the country, a decision by the justices to take the case could mean the difference between a right that’s protected and one that’s quietly denied.
Matthew Hayward is Director of Strategic Outreach at the Freedom Foundation.
