Opinion
Law & Courts Opinion

Why the Court’s Ruling Against Mandatory Union Dues Is a Good Thing

By Neal McCluskey — June 27, 2018 4 min read
Plaintiff Mark Janus, center, sits with Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner, left, and Liberty Justice Center founder and chairman John Tillman inside the U.S. Supreme Court as the decision in Janus v AFSCME is delivered. The Illinois-based Liberty Justice Center has been representing Janus in his years-long challenge to union fees.

The role of unions in education is highly contentious, eliciting intense emotions both for and against them. To many, unions are the first, most powerful force for protecting and advancing teachers’ interests. To others, they are the most firmly planted, towering obstacles to reforms ranging from value-added assessments to school choice. But today’s Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Council 31 ruling should not be viewed through a lens of what is good or bad for unions, but whether justice has been served. And in the U.S. Supreme Court’s finding that public employees cannot be forced to pay agency fees as a condition of government employment, it has been.

The entire idea of constitutional government, which gives specific powers to government and protects rights remaining with the people is, essentially, to declare that ends cannot justify means. You may want a specific outcome, you may even think it is crucial, but the government cannot exceed its delegated power or trample individual rights to get that outcome. Today’s ruling adheres to that foundation, basically saying that no matter how important you think collective bargaining is for balancing the power between employer and employees, obtaining good wages, or amplifying teachers’ voices, those ends cannot trump an individual’s basic right not to pay for speech he or she finds unacceptable.

As Justice Alito writes in the court’s decision, “prominent members of the founding generation condemned laws requiring public employees to affirm or support beliefs with which they disagreed.” He notes that, “Jefferson denounced compelled support for such beliefs as ‘sinful and tyrannical.’”

But what of freeloading? The dissenting employee gets the benefit of the union-bargained contract without paying for the service.

This argument does not pass principled muster, as it essentially declares that one should be forced to pay for a contract even if one dislikes—maybe even hates—its terms. It’s akin to being forced to pay for a restaurant and having no choice about the meal on the grounds that, well, you’re getting fed aren’t you? “But I’m a vegetarian,” you might say, “and can’t even eat this turkey sandwich.”

The decision uses a different analogy, summarizing the petitioner’s argument that, “he is not a free rider on a bus headed for a destination that he wishes to reach but is more like a person shanghaied for an unwanted voyage.”

Of course, avoiding freeloading cannot justify crushing fundamental rights, even if the person whose rights are being abrogated happens to love the union-bargained contract. As the court states, “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.”

It is also impossible to accept that payment earmarked for collective bargaining is not paying for political speech, though the nature of the compelled speech should be irrelevant as a matter of principle. Collective bargaining with a public school district is a political exercise because it involves negotiations with a government entity—yes, they are “government schools”—and efforts to influence what government does are inherently political. Add to this the fact that money is fungible: Dollars forced from agency-fee payers free up voluntary dues for everything from lobbying state capitals to organizing PR campaigns. The notion that forced fees are somehow hermetically sealed off from politics is illusory.

So we should be cheered by today’s ruling. But not, crucially, because it weakens unions. Even if the unions may often stand against reforms you like, there is nothing inherently wrong with members of any profession working collectively for their shared good. Indeed, it is the right of all people to do so. Such action can be an important counterbalance against powerful forces, be they school districts or big corporations. What is crucial is that such collective action be voluntary, and that is what today’s ruling does. It declares force unacceptable.

Perhaps this will even be good for the union movement, despite weakening unions in the short run. Even if they lose many members and significant revenue, they will almost certainly remain for many in the media and government the voices of millions of teachers—and that is where their real power lies. And perhaps the freeing of once-captive funders will incentivize them to work a little harder to convince teachers to join by moderating dues, decreasing some political advocacy that may seem tangential to the functioning of schools, or making teachers feel more heard.

That said, how the unions respond to the Janus ruling, or its effects on the political prospects for education reforms, are ultimately irrelevant to the reason that we should welcome this decision: By protecting basic individual rights, justice was served.

Follow the Education Week Commentary section on Facebook and Twitter. Sign up to get the latest Education Week Commentaries in your email inbox.

Events

Jobs The EdWeek Top School Jobs Virtual Career Fair
Find teaching jobs and other jobs in K-12 education at the EdWeek Top School Jobs virtual career fair.
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Curriculum Webinar
How to Power Your Curriculum With Digital Books
Register for this can’t miss session looking at best practices for utilizing digital books to support their curriculum.
Content provided by OverDrive
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Student Well-Being Webinar
Embracing Student Engagement: The Pathway to Post-Pandemic Learning
As schools emerge from remote learning, educators are understandably worried about content and skills that students would otherwise have learned under normal circumstances. This raises the very real possibility that children will face endless hours
Content provided by Newsela

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Law & Courts Let Transgender Student Play on Girls Team, Feds Say, Supporting Her Suit Over a State Law
A West Virginia law barring transgender girls from girls' sports teams violates Title IX and U.S. Constitution, the Justice Department says.
3 min read
Advocates for transgender people march from the South Dakota governor's mansion to the Capitol in Pierre, S.D., on March 11, 2021, to protest a proposed ban on transgender girls and women from female sports leagues.
Advocates for transgender people march from the South Dakota governor's mansion to the Capitol in Pierre, S.D., to protest a ban on transgender girls and women from female sports leagues, one of dozens of measures considered in state legislatures this year.
Stephen Groves/AP
Law & Courts Some Takeaways for Educators in Supreme Court Rulings on Obamacare, Religious Liberties
The justices rejected a challenge to Obamacare on standing grounds while ruling narrowly in a case involving foster care in Philadelphia.
6 min read
Members of the Supreme Court pose for a group photo at the Supreme Court in Washington on April 23, 2021.
Members of the Supreme Court pose for a group photo at the Supreme Court in Washington on April 23, 2021.
Erin Schaff/The New York Times via AP
Law & Courts The Opioid Crisis Hit Schools Hard. Now They Want Drug Companies to Pay Up
School districts have collectively spent at least $127 billion on services for students affected by opioid addiction, recent court filings say.
12 min read
An arrangement of Oxycodone pills in New York, pictured on Aug. 29, 2018. A new study shoots down the notion that medical marijuana laws can prevent opioid overdose deaths. Chelsea Shover of Stanford University School of Medicine and colleagues reported the findings Monday, June 10, in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The painkiller Oxycodone is among the opioids implicated in a health crisis that has school districts joining with states and municipalities in seeking damages from drug manufacturers.
Mark Lennihan/AP
Law & Courts High Court Asks Biden Administration Views on Harvard Affirmative Action in Admissions
Some had expected U.S. Supreme Court justices to jump at the chance to reconsider the practices in education, but that's delayed for now.
3 min read
In this Nov. 10, 2020 photo the sun rises behind the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington. The Supreme Court seemed concerned Tuesday, Dec. 1, about the impact of siding with food giants Nestle and Cargill and ending a lawsuit that claims they knowingly bought cocoa beans from farms in Africa that used child slave labor. The court was hearing arguments in the case by phone because of the coronavirus pandemic.
The U.S. Supreme Court is still weighing whether to hear a case challenging Harvard University's race-conscious admissions policies.
Alex Brandon/AP