Ka-Boom! Agency Fees For Public Unions Tossed

[whell]

In a 5-4 vote today, the justices held that states and public-sector unions may no longer require workers to pay agency fees. "Neither an agency fee nor any other payment to the union may be deducted from a nonmember's wages, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay," Justice Samuel Alito Jr. wrote for the majority.

In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan said the decision will have large-scale consequences. "Public employee unions will lose a secure source of financial support. State and local governments that thought fair-share provisions furthered their interests will need to find new ways of managing their workforces," she wrote.

The majority apparently focused on the 1st Amendment, stating that agency fees were used without the non-members consent for political activities and such forced contributions violated the non-union members 1st Amendment rights.

"It is hard to estimate how many billions of dollars have been taken from nonmembers and transferred to public-sector unions in violation of the First Amendment. Those unconstitutional exactions cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely," Alito wrote.

Ka Boom!

[finnbow]

Not being a fan of public sector unions, I'm totally OK with this decision.

[barbara]

Having been a public servant who was required to pay money to the union, I am glad to see this happen.

Not that I have anything against unions in general, but the one I had to pay was terrible.

[Rajoo]

Not being a fan of public sector unions, I'm totally OK with this decision.

So am I, in fact the time for unions have come and gone.
Labor laws in this country is more than adequate to protect the rights of the workers except for cradle to grave jobs. Postal workers union is an absolute joke, so is the local BART union.

[Oerets]

The employee's will soon be getting what they pay for. Then let them see just how well the work environment conditions become.
Freeloaders!
Sad day for labor.

[whell]

The employee's will soon be getting what they pay for. Then let them see just how well the work environment conditions become.
Freeloaders!
Sad day for labor.

This only impacts public unions. Government workplaces tend to change at a more modest pace, so I suspect no near-term consequences for the workplace.

[finnbow]

The employee's will soon be getting what they pay for. Then let them see just how well the work environment conditions become.
Freeloaders!
Sad day for labor.

It will have little impact upon the employees directly because public sector employees are largely prohibited from striking and negotiating over salary and benefits anyway. The larger impact is that organized labor's political activities will be diminished because they are primarily funded by public sector dues and not private sector dues, reflecting union representation in the two sectors being ~35% (public) and ~7% (private).

[barbara]

Finn.... public employees are allowed to strike and negotiate salaries and benefits where I live. Maybe it is different in other areas.

[finnbow]

Finn.... public employees are allowed to strike and negotiate salaries and benefits where I live. Maybe it is different in other areas.

In most states and certainly the Federal government, they are not (remember Reagan firing the air traffic controllers for striking). That said, sometimes they strike anyway, whether or not the law allows it.

[Oerets]

We shall see who is correct.

I stand by my statements. This I fear is being done NOT to help the workers, instead to help management. The Government and Business/Industry never ever wanted unionized labor to begin with. Was forced upon them unwilling, and ever since have wanted to eliminate labor's voice and power.
This is and always was a not so veiled attempt to gut, weaken labor, a chipping away at an organized workforce. How dare an employee have voice at the table, shut up and be happy you'all have a JOB!

When a union is weak, ineffective and some are. The members voted in the representatives after all. A local is only as powerful as it members. Imagine a workforce without one or think of the time before their rise. I hear people use the complaints of the lazy keeping jobs, seniority getting perks ect....
Only to remind them of jobs they may have been at where the bosses kids, golf buddies, @sski$$ing brownnose were the management. A new hire get the same pay your getting after five years. Afraid of taking sick day will get you fired. The management making extreme demands with little knowledge or cares to the efforts involved.
Let us fact it, if there was a place every employee could seek remedies impartially with neutrally unions would have no place.

[finnbow]

We shall see who is correct.

I stand by my statements. This I fear is being done NOT to help the workers, instead to help management...

Not so sure. There are thousands of public sector employees who would rather not pay union dues for a mostly toothless union and the plaintiff was one of them. Management will obviously not object, but neither will many employees.

[Oerets]

If one thinks a Union is toothless ineffective now just wait until after this takes it true course and make them even more so.

I stand by my cry baby freeloader wanting his cake and eat it too!

[bobabode]

The employee's will soon be getting what they pay for. Then let them see just how well the work environment conditions become.
Freeloaders!
Sad day for labor.

I'm with you brother. A truly sad day for labor.

[nailer]

But a good day for the First.

[whell]

I'm with you brother. A truly sad day for labor.

It may be. However, its pretty clear that unions have become less relevant to workers in the 21st century than they were in the 20th century. This ruling may provide the needed impetus for union leadership to figure out a way to make unions relevant to workers again. I suspect they'll need to do that if they hope to survive.

[Oerets]

Once the teeth were removed of a strike the real power of Unions was weakened. By being able to replace striking workers with scabs. (PATCO)
In the convening years we have seen the eroding of workers benefits and rights across all fields of employment. The loss of a retirement replaced by a self funded IRA along with health benefits. Stagnant to nonexistent pay increases. Safety cuts.

[finnbow]

It may be. However, its pretty clear that unions have become less relevant to workers in the 21st century than they were in the 20th century. This ruling may provide the needed impetus for union leadership to figure out a way to make unions relevant to workers again. I suspect they'll need to do that if they hope to survive.

This will probably be futile in that private sector union participation is currently at ~7% and union bosses have been relying upon public sector unions to keep them afloat for years because of paltry union representation in the private sector. For example, union participation in the historically union-heavy construction industry is now down to 14%.