Reference no: EM134011558

Question

FREE RIDE OR FREE SPEECH?

As this chapter explains, union goals include security provisions, such as agency shops, to ensure a regular flow of union dues. Right-to-work states forbid these provisions, but in Illinois (which is not a right-to-work state), personal care assistants providing services through the state-run programs serving people with disabilities or in rehabilitation were required to pay union dues, whether or not they wanted to join the union. A majority of the personal care assistants had voted to make the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) their representative in 2003. The collective bargaining agreement included a "fair share" provision that required nonmembers of the union to pay not the full amount of dues, but a proportionate share of union costs for collective bargaining and contract administration.

Several of the personal care assistants sued the state government, saying the "fair share" provision violated their rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association. They lost the case in district court and in the appellate court, but the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed in a 5-4 vote. According to the majority, the concern that workers should not get a free ride does not override concern for workers' First Amendment rights. Their ruling applied to the particular case of "quasi-public" workers who are paid by but not directly supervised by the government. When a person's employer is a government entity, the union's stance in bargaining with that government could conflict with a worker's political views. The court saw the requirement to support the union by paying dues as potentially forcing people to support the union's political message over the workers' own views. The dissenting view emphasized the fairness and protection provided by a system in which a single body representing workers' interests bargains with the government entity and no workers can take advantage of the resulting benefits for free.

Early expectations were that the SEIU would lose up to one-third of the revenue from workers who were not union members. However, representatives of the union say that the Supreme Court motivated the SEIU to work harder at reaching out to workers, resulting in a surge of interest. Another union representing a similar group of workers, the Domestic Workers of America, reported that it signed up more than 30,000 new members, doubling its membership. Other unions' leaders reported that the case made workers more attuned to issues of equity and power. At one local of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, 150 of 200 payers of fair-share fees converted to full dues-paying status. The Supreme Court in 2018 bolstered the state's position with its ruling that public employees do not have to pay unions a fee to bargain for them, but the California example suggests there is still a future for public-sector unions.

Questions

1. What issues of fairness and equity come into play in this case?

2. How well does the outcome of this case represent respect for basic human rights? How well does it do the greatest good for the greatest number?