The US Supreme Court has ruled that fees paid to public sector trade unions by non-member government workers amount to a violation of the first amendment of the US constitution, claiming such fees breach the right of these workers’ to free speech.
Mark Janus, a child support worker for the state government in Illinois, brought the case before the courts. In the state of Illinois, public sector employees are required to subsidise trade unions even if they themselves are not members of these unions. Mr Janus, who was represented by a union, sued the union because he did not agree with many of the political positions that it held, and therefore he did not believe that he should be required to pay the fees.
It has been the view that non-members should have to pay a fee towards unions as they often benefit from the actions of trade unions regardless of membership. Trade unions had previously collected these fees from non-members on the basis that all employees reap the advantages of the union’s advocacy work. In addition to this, if any payments are used for political purposes, such payments can be refunded.
Previous court decisions had ruled that payments from non-members must not be used for political activities, as that would be unconstitutional, but for a union’s collective bargaining endeavours as this would eliminate the ‘‘free rider’’ thus preserving labour peace.
However, the Supreme Court’s decided that it was unconstitutional to expect a worker to pay fees to a union which held views and supported political movements contrary to their own beliefs. Justice Samuel A. Alito stated that these fees ‘’violate the free speech rights of non-members by compelling them to subsidise private speech matters of substantial public concern.’’
Justice Alito went on to further state that keeping labour peace and reducing the amount of free riders did not validate the obligatory payments made by non-members nor did it supersede the rights guaranteed under the first amendment.
The Court’s verdict is predicted to be extremely detrimental to organised labour and trade unions, having major implications for the scope of their power. Dissenting, Justice Elena Kagan claimed that the decision ‘‘prevents the American people, acting through their state and local officials, from making important choices about workplace governance. And it does so by weaponising the First Amendment, in a way that unleashes judges, now and in the future, to intervene in economic and regulatory policy.’’
Click here to read the full US Supreme Court judgement.