The Sly Economics of Government Union Activism
As Labor Day loomed, the airwaves filled with pro-union sentiment, celebrating the virtues of solidarity. The union advocates didn’t have much to say, though, about the underhanded way government unions force members who want workplace representation to also pay for the unions’ social activism.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME fundamentally altered the landscape of union membership for public employees. The decision upended the Abood v. Detroit Board of Education framework, which had allowed public employees to opt out of the portion of their union dues earmarked for explicit political activities while still mandating payment for other union advocacy efforts. The Abood framework, in other words, permitted public employees to only pay dues for workplace representational activities.
Janus, however, changed the rules. It declared that all government union activities are political, and therefore subject to First Amendment considerations. So, government unions responded by forcing public employees into the stark choice of paying no dues, or paying for both representational activities and non-representational activism. This prompts a question: Why don’t unions offer a dues structure that allows members to pay solely for workplace representation?
This all-or-nothing approach casts doubt on union transparency and the actual value that members receive for their dues payments. Many public employees appreciate workplace representation but are unwilling to overpay or contribute to political causes that conflict with their beliefs. This underscores the need for unions to adopt a transparent and fair dues structure.
Historically, unions have engaged in practices that muddy the waters of their financial dealings. They claim that union dues are not used for political purposes – a patently false assertion. Moreover, by soliciting donations for their political action committees (PACs), unions deflect questions about how general dues also get spent on partisan politics. These practices demand greater scrutiny and reform.
Unions often argue for the right to charge even nonmembers an “agency fee,” justifying this by stating that they are legally required to represent every worker in the bargaining unit. This argument sidesteps the fact that unions themselves have lobbied for this arrangement. They have fought for the right of exclusive representation, which grants them the sole authority to speak for all employees in a given workplace, whether those employees are union members or not. In essence, unions are victims of their own policy; they’ve created a system where they have a monopoly on workers’ voices.
When presented with the option to relinquish this exclusive representation, thereby freeing themselves from the obligation to represent nonmembers, unions invariably refuse. This reveals a glaring contradiction in their position. On one hand, they lament the “free riders” who benefit from union representation without paying dues. On the other, they zealously guard their monopoly over the public workplace, wanting to represent everyone in a bargaining unit, whether a member or not.
The issue transcends mere percentages and numbers; it’s a matter of trust, transparency, and financial autonomy. Unions must reevaluate their approach to membership and adapt to the new legal landscape. The question: Will unions serve their members and charge them accordingly, or maintain their own political agendas by overcharging?
