Federal Ruling on Unions Should be Felt Most in N.C. Political Activity | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's note: The author of this post is Lindsay Marchello, who is an associate editor for the Carolina Journal, John Hood Publisher.

    Public employee unions can't compel workers to pay union fees, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Wednesday, June 27, in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees.

    The ruling threatens membership numbers of unions across the country. But while North Carolina doesn't have traditional unions, the ruling could affect their level of influence in the state, albeit indirectly.

    "Membership of the North Carolina Association of Educators has been decreasing for years, so the Janus ruling is not going to change that," said Terry Stoops, vice president of research and director of education studies at the John Locke Foundation. "Teachers are choosing to not join the association in larger numbers than most other states, according to the data we have available."

    But Stoops said the ruling could affect how the National Education Association prioritizes elections across the country. With less money to dole out, the NEA probably need to carefully target elections and candidates.

    Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, which argues AFSCME violated plaintiff Mark Janus' free speech rights by compelling him to pay union dues, even though he disagreed with the union's positions.

    "Under Illinois law, public employees are forced to subsi­dize a union, even if they choose not to join and strongly object to the positions the union takes in collective bargaining and related activities," Alito wrote. "We conclude that this arrangement violates the free speech rights of non members by compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern."

    Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissenting opinion, arguing the decision will have large-scale consequences and "alter the relationship between public employees and employers in both predictable and wholly unexpected ways."

    Kagan said the majority's ruling overthrows a 40-year-old precedent, when Abood v. Detroit Board of Education upheld compulsory union fees.

    "As a result, it prevents the American people, acting through their state and local officials, from making important choices about workplace governance," Kagan wrote. "And it does so by weaponizing the First Amendment in a way that unleashes judges ... to intervene in economic and regulatory policy."

    Proponents of agency fees have long argued they prevent free riders, or nonunion members, from gaining the benefits of collective bargaining without providing financial support to the union.

    Alito disagreed that this reasoning justified compelling dues.

    "Free rider arguments ... are generally insufficient to overcome First Amendment objections," Alito wrote. "The First amendment does not permit the government to compel a person to pay for another party's speech just because the government thinks that the speech furthers the interest of the person who does not want to pay."

    Janus is reminiscent of Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, which saw California teacher Rebecca Friedrichs fighting against compulsory dues to the state's teacher union. The court issued a 4-4 ruling in 2016, sending the case back to the lower courts.

    The NEA is the largest public union in the country with more than 3 million members. The Janus decision opens the door for teachers in states across the country to decide whether to join unions.

    "This is good news for the nation, for thousands of educators who have long been exploited by the teachers unions, and for families whose educational opportunities have been compromised by their political activity," Jeanne Allen, founder and CEO of the Center for Education Reform, said. "When it comes to education, the most fundamental of all policies that shape our futures, no longer can the union compel people to support activities and positions regardless of principle."

    Kate Walsh, president of the National Council on Teacher Quality, said the court ruling provides an opportunity for teacher unions to reform.

    "Today's decision to end unions' ability to collect "agency fees" from nonconsenting employees puts the onus squarely on teachers union leaders to demonstrate relevance and value to today's teachers," Walsh said in a news release. "Union leaders should use this decision as an opportunity to revisit the reforms they've long resisted."