What Supreme Court Justices said in debate over union fee case

Workers rally in Foley Square ahead of Supreme Court vote on labor union funding

When union membership is voluntary, he said, some members stop paying, and dues go up for the rest.

This argument was poised to succeed two years ago with a case out of California involving the teacher's union, but derailed by the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.

Given that the facts ween Harris and Quinn are so similar, and that the only change between the 2014 tie and the 2017 case is the appointment of Justice Gorsuch, most court watchers believe that Janus has the upper hand. And he wasn't talking.

In anticipation of the loss, Madeloni said union leaders are working more aggressively to persuade workers of the benefits of union membership.

After three cases in 2012, 2014 and 2016, the high court appears poised to reverse its own 40-year-old precedent and strike down the fees as unconstitutional.

He said the union uses his monthly fees "to promote an agenda I don't support", objecting to the legislation supported by the union's lobbying arm and politicians supported by its political arm. A decision in the case is expected no later than June. Drawing on "right-to-work" arguments, he contends that mandatory "agency fees" paid to the union for contract negotiations violate his free speech because the union takes actions with which he does not agree, the Washington Post reports. Members of Teamsters Local 773 and Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) Local 956 showed up in numbers, as did activists with Make the Road Pennsylvania, which advocates for Latino communities and progressive causes. Until now, those workers could save only about 10% to 20% of their costs by quitting the union. Therefore, he does not think he should pay fair share fees, only full-share participants. Those are people he fears the union could lose.

Supporters and opponents of mandatory fees that some government employees must pay their unions voiced their arguments Monday outside the U.S. Supreme Court as justices prepared to hear the case.

"Abood should be overruled because it failed to apply heightened First Amendment scrutiny to a compulsory fee for speech to influence governmental policies", Messenger said - a succinct statement of the position to end agency fees in public sector unions.

He views the the Janus vs. AFSCME case to be about "free rider syndrome", which Mark describes as "I want all the benefits of being in a union, but why would I actually be a member?"

Despite such arguments, unions are bracing for a loss because a almost identical case in 2016 resulted in a 4-to-4 deadlock, less than a month after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

Messenger responded that these unions are required by law to represent non-members and members in the collective bargaining process.

To illustrate the nonpolitical nature of union negotiations, Peter MacKinnon, head of the union that represents Massachusetts' child protection workers, pointed to his union's work overhauling the troubled Department of Children and Families. Unions argue that their political activities are separate from negotiating contracts.

Liberal Justice Elana Kagan stressed how disruptive a ruling against the unions would be, leading to thousands of labor contracts being renegotiated, striking down laws in various states and affecting "the livelihoods of millions of individuals". The decline has been fueled in the private sector, where only 6.5% of workers remain unionized.

Public sector unions also have helped keep Democrats in power in blue states and kept organized labor from extinction. In 1991, Scalia wrote an opinion holding that if the law requires unions to provide certain services for all employees, it can also require all of them to pay for those services. "When they organize for dignity and respect, we should support them". More than 4.5 million teachers are union members.