In a commentary published on CNS NEWS (see the link below to read the whole thing), I point out that, in a just-resolved Supreme Court case challenging the constitutionality of forced union dues and fees in the government sector, there was ultimately no difference of opinion between the Right to Work advocates and the proponents of compulsory financial support for unions regarding one important matter.
That is to say, the 10 independent-minded Golden State educator plaintiffs in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association contended that the union officials whom they were suing “advocate numerous policies that affirmatively harm [many] teachers.” And the respondents didn’t disagree. Indeed, one of them, California Attorney General Kamala Harris, actually confirmed in her own brief that union officials “do have substantial latitude to advance bargaining positions that . . . run counter to the economic interests of some employees.”
The difference of opinion was over whether it violates the First Amendment for an educator who isn’t a union member to be forced to pay union fees for harmful Big Labor “representation.” As the commentary explains, with the assistance of four justices, Big Labor has retained, at least for now, its constitutional prerogative to get public employees fired for refusal to bankroll union bargaining that “runs counter” to the employees’ “economic interests.”
But despite the Friedrichs outcome, Right to Work efforts to revoke union bosses’ forced-fee privileges, either legislatively or judicially, will keep getting more intense.