US Supreme Court rules gov't workers can’t be forced to contribute to unions

WASHINGTON (AP) — The United States Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that government workers can’t be forced to contribute to labour unions that represent them in collective bargaining, dealing a serious financial blow to Democratic-leaning organized labour.

The court’s conservative majority, re-empowered by Justice Neil Gorsuch, scrapped a 41-year-old decision that had allowed states to require that public employees pay some fees to unions that represent them, even if the workers choose not to join.

The 5-4 decision not only will free non-union members in nearly two dozen states from any financial ties to unions, but also could encourage members to stop paying dues for services the court said Wednesday they can get for free.

Union leaders said in reaction to the ruling that they expect to suffer some loss of revenue and also predicted that the same anti-union forces that pushed to get rid of the so-called fair shares that non-members had to pay will try to persuade members to cut their ties.

“There are already plans,” said Lily Eskelsen García, president of the National Education Association.

“They are going after our members,” García said.

But, American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten said unions would not be dissuaded: “Don’t count us out

The labour leaders spoke after the court ruled that the laws requiring fair share fees violate the First Amendment by compelling workers to support unions they may disagree with.

“States and public-sector unions may no longer extract agency fees from nonconsenting employees,” Justice Samuel Alito said in his majority opinion in the latest case in which Gorsuch, an appointee of President Donald Trump, provided a key fifth vote for a conservative outcome.

In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote of the big impact of the decision.

“There is no sugarcoating today’s opinion. The majority overthrows a decision entrenched in this Nation’s law - and its economic life - for over 40 years. As a result, it 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”.

The court’s three other liberal justices joined the dissent.

We want to hear from you! Send us a message on WhatsApp at 1-876-449-0169, email us at editors@gleanerjm.com or onlinefeedback@gleanerjm.com.