Supreme Court: Unions can’t collect ‘fair share’ fees

Error message
In order to filter by the "in queue" property, you need to add the Entityqueue: Queue relationship.-
County NewsThe Supreme Court held 5–4 in Janus v. AFSCME that state statutes allowing public sector employers and unions to agree that employees who don’t join the union must still pay their “fair share” of collective bargaining costs violate the First Amendment. The court also held that employees must “affirmatively consent” to join the union.Supreme Court: Unions can’t collect ‘fair share’ fees
-
County News Article
Supreme Court: Unions can’t collect ‘fair share’ fees
The Supreme Court held 5–4 in Janus v. AFSCME that state statutes allowing public sector employers and unions to agree that employees who don’t join the union must still pay their “fair share” of collective bargaining costs violate the First Amendment. The court also held that employees must “affirmatively consent” to join the union. More than 20 states authorize “fair share” for public sector employees.
In Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not prevent “agency shop” arrangements where public employees who do not join the union are still required to pay their “fair share” of union dues for collective-bargaining, contract administration and grievance-adjustment. In Janus, the Supreme Court overruled Abood.
The Supreme Court’s decision isn’t surprising. The five most conservative Justices had criticized Abood in 2014 in Harris v. Quinn. In 2016, right before Justice Antonin Scalia died, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, which raised the same question as Janus. The court ultimately issued a 4–4 decision in that case which, practically speaking, kept Abood on the books.
Learn More
New Mexico, Delaware counties explore right-to-work ordinance
Mark Janus, a child support specialist with the Illinois Department of Health Care and Family Services, challenged Illinois’s agency fee statute applicable to public employees.
In an opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the court repudiated the two main justifications for “fair share” in Abood. The court’s main defense of agency fee in Abood is that it promotes “labor peace.” The union acts as the exclusive representative of all employees in a bargaining unit so no rivals unions can cause conflict. In Janus the Court pointed out that labor peace exists in federal employment, where agency fee is disallowed, and states without agency fee. “The Abood Court assumed that designation of a union as the exclusive representative of all the employees in a unit and the exaction of agency fees are inextricably linked, but that is simply not true.”
The second defense for agency fee in Abood was to avoid free riders who “enjoy the benefits of union representation without shouldering the costs.” But the court pointed out that Janus argues, “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.” More technically, the court concluded 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 interests of the person who does not want to pay.”
Prior to Janus unions could ask employees to “opt-in” or “opt-out” of paying dues. Unions prefer the opt-out arrangement where the union contacts employees each year and tells them they will be a member of the union unless they contact the union and opt-out. The court held that going forward only “opt-in” is permissible where employees must affirmatively tell the union they want to be a member.
In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Elena Kagan, joined by the court’s other liberal justices, warned that the decision to overturn Abood will “have large scale consequences.” She noted that many state and local governments “have found agency fees the best way to ensure a stable and productive relationship with an exclusive bargaining agent.” She concluded her dissent by warning that the Janus decision had “chosen the winners” in the debate between states over the role of unions “by turning the First Amendment into a sword.”
County reaction to Supreme Court ruling
Lehigh County, Pa. has nearly 2,000 county employees. Hundreds are considered “fair share” contributors to public unions — meaning they are contributing money from their paychecks to unions whether they want to or not and are benefiting from the unions’ bargaining power. But after the Supreme Court recently overturned a 1977 decision that required public employees to pay dues and fees to unions in unionized shops, saying it was a violation of free speech, those employees are no longer required to pay union dues.
County Executive Phillips Armstrong of Lehigh County, Pa. said about half of the county employees there are in unions. “Just about all of them have signed up to continue, knowing this was about to happen,” he said.
Lehigh County informed employees of the decision. “We immediately sent out an email to everybody,” he said. “We contacted all of the union leaders too. It went really smooth.”
David A. Dunbar, an SEIU Local 721 member at the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services, said he and other union members tweeted out their support for their union during work and lunch breaks using “our #UnionStrong hashtag, which trended in L.A. on the day of the decision,” he said. “Nobody was surprised that morning, so we focused exclusively on letting the world know that we are choosing unions for the long haul.”
Dunbar noted that “membership in my union is a small investment that pays off not just for my family — but my community. Unions make our cities, counties and states strong.”
Sussex County, Del. Councilman Rob Arlett had a different take on the court’s decision: “I applaud their decision to allow the workers to be able to make the choice to be in a union and receive those benefits and pay a fee or not,” he said. “To me, it was empowering to the worker.” Arlett said there are county employees in Sussex County in a union. “I will tell you there are employees in the union who are furious about it [having to pay dues without joining]. I get a little thrown under the bus on social media by union guys because of that ordinance I tried to pass.
“I do not ‘not support unions.’ What I support is choice,” he said. -Mary Ann Barton, senior staff writer
The Supreme Court held 5–4 in Janus v.2018-07-23County News Article2023-04-11
The Supreme Court held 5–4 in Janus v. AFSCME that state statutes allowing public sector employers and unions to agree that employees who don’t join the union must still pay their “fair share” of collective bargaining costs violate the First Amendment. The court also held that employees must “affirmatively consent” to join the union. More than 20 states authorize “fair share” for public sector employees.
In Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not prevent “agency shop” arrangements where public employees who do not join the union are still required to pay their “fair share” of union dues for collective-bargaining, contract administration and grievance-adjustment. In Janus, the Supreme Court overruled Abood.
The Supreme Court’s decision isn’t surprising. The five most conservative Justices had criticized Abood in 2014 in Harris v. Quinn. In 2016, right before Justice Antonin Scalia died, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, which raised the same question as Janus. The court ultimately issued a 4–4 decision in that case which, practically speaking, kept Abood on the books.
Learn More
New Mexico, Delaware counties explore right-to-work ordinance
Mark Janus, a child support specialist with the Illinois Department of Health Care and Family Services, challenged Illinois’s agency fee statute applicable to public employees.
In an opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the court repudiated the two main justifications for “fair share” in Abood. The court’s main defense of agency fee in Abood is that it promotes “labor peace.” The union acts as the exclusive representative of all employees in a bargaining unit so no rivals unions can cause conflict. In Janus the Court pointed out that labor peace exists in federal employment, where agency fee is disallowed, and states without agency fee. “The Abood Court assumed that designation of a union as the exclusive representative of all the employees in a unit and the exaction of agency fees are inextricably linked, but that is simply not true.”
The second defense for agency fee in Abood was to avoid free riders who “enjoy the benefits of union representation without shouldering the costs.” But the court pointed out that Janus argues, “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.” More technically, the court concluded 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 interests of the person who does not want to pay.”
Prior to Janus unions could ask employees to “opt-in” or “opt-out” of paying dues. Unions prefer the opt-out arrangement where the union contacts employees each year and tells them they will be a member of the union unless they contact the union and opt-out. The court held that going forward only “opt-in” is permissible where employees must affirmatively tell the union they want to be a member.
In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Elena Kagan, joined by the court’s other liberal justices, warned that the decision to overturn Abood will “have large scale consequences.” She noted that many state and local governments “have found agency fees the best way to ensure a stable and productive relationship with an exclusive bargaining agent.” She concluded her dissent by warning that the Janus decision had “chosen the winners” in the debate between states over the role of unions “by turning the First Amendment into a sword.”
County reaction to Supreme Court ruling
Lehigh County, Pa. has nearly 2,000 county employees. Hundreds are considered “fair share” contributors to public unions — meaning they are contributing money from their paychecks to unions whether they want to or not and are benefiting from the unions’ bargaining power. But after the Supreme Court recently overturned a 1977 decision that required public employees to pay dues and fees to unions in unionized shops, saying it was a violation of free speech, those employees are no longer required to pay union dues.
County Executive Phillips Armstrong of Lehigh County, Pa. said about half of the county employees there are in unions. “Just about all of them have signed up to continue, knowing this was about to happen,” he said.
Lehigh County informed employees of the decision. “We immediately sent out an email to everybody,” he said. “We contacted all of the union leaders too. It went really smooth.”
David A. Dunbar, an SEIU Local 721 member at the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services, said he and other union members tweeted out their support for their union during work and lunch breaks using “our #UnionStrong hashtag, which trended in L.A. on the day of the decision,” he said. “Nobody was surprised that morning, so we focused exclusively on letting the world know that we are choosing unions for the long haul.”
Dunbar noted that “membership in my union is a small investment that pays off not just for my family — but my community. Unions make our cities, counties and states strong.”
Sussex County, Del. Councilman Rob Arlett had a different take on the court’s decision: “I applaud their decision to allow the workers to be able to make the choice to be in a union and receive those benefits and pay a fee or not,” he said. “To me, it was empowering to the worker.” Arlett said there are county employees in Sussex County in a union. “I will tell you there are employees in the union who are furious about it [having to pay dues without joining]. I get a little thrown under the bus on social media by union guys because of that ordinance I tried to pass.
“I do not ‘not support unions.’ What I support is choice,” he said. -Mary Ann Barton, senior staff writer
Hero 1
About Lisa Soronen (Full Bio)
Executive Director, State and Local Legal Center
Lisa Soronen is the Executive Director of the State and Local Legal Center (SLLC). Prior to joining the SLLC, Ms. Soronen worked for the National School Boards Association, the Wisconsin Association of School Boards, and clerked for the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.More from Lisa Soronen
-
Blog
An alternative solution for the government workforce crisis
NACo Partner Resource This blog post is sponsored by NACo partner CAI. Explore our latest blog on leveraging neurodiversity for a stronger government workforce. -
Blog
Supreme Court expands the obligation of employers, including county governments, to provide religious accommodations for workers
On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of a postal worker who sued the U.S. Postal Service for failing to accommodate his religious beliefs when penalizing his refusal to work Sunday shifts. -
County News
Urban county leaders discuss workforce development
Leaders from NACo’s Large Urban County Caucus (LUCC) gathered June 14 in Washington, D.C. to share how their respective counties are bridging the workforce development divide and discuss policy solutions. -
Webinar
Creating Inclusive Pathways to Higher Education and Employment for County Residents
Jun. 21, 2023 , 3:00 pm – 4:00 pmPost-secondary education can be a pathway to gaining the degrees, credentials and skills needed for family-sustaining employment. -
Webinar
Prenatal-to-Three Peer Learning Network: Long-Term Strategies for Strengthening the Child Care Workforce (Urban/Larger Counties)
Mar. 22, 2023 , 2:00 pm – 3:00 pmUnable to attend? Watch the recording here. -
Webinar
Prenatal-to-Three Peer Learning Network: Long-Term Strategies for Strengthening the Child Care Workforce (Rural/Smaller Counties)
Mar. 21, 2023 , 2:15 pm – 3:15 pmUnable to attend? Watch the recording here.
-
Basic page
Community, Economic & Workforce Development Steering Committee
Responsible for all matters pertaining to housing, community and economic development, public works, and workforce development including the creation of affordable housing and housing options for different populations, residential, commercial, and industrial development, and building and housing codes. Policy Platform & Resolutions 2022-2023 2022 NACo Legislative Prioritiespagepagepage<p>Responsible for all matters pertaining to housing, community and economic development, public works, and workforce development including the creation of affordable housing and housing options for different populations, residential,
Contact
-
Executive Director, State and Local Legal Center
Related Resources
-
Blog
An alternative solution for the government workforce crisis
NACo Partner Resource This blog post is sponsored by NACo partner CAI. Explore our latest blog on leveraging neurodiversity for a stronger government workforce. -
Blog
Supreme Court expands the obligation of employers, including county governments, to provide religious accommodations for workers
On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of a postal worker who sued the U.S. Postal Service for failing to accommodate his religious beliefs when penalizing his refusal to work Sunday shifts. -
County News
Urban county leaders discuss workforce development
Leaders from NACo’s Large Urban County Caucus (LUCC) gathered June 14 in Washington, D.C. to share how their respective counties are bridging the workforce development divide and discuss policy solutions.
-
Reports & Toolkits
ARPA Impact Report: An Analysis of How Counties are Addressing National Issues With Local Investments
With American Rescue Plan funds, counties are strengthening America’s workforce, addressing the nation’s behavioral health crisis, expanding broadband access, improving housing affordability and building prosperous communities for the next generation. -
Press Release
State and Local Government Groups Call for National Strategy to Address Urgent Workforce Needs
As public and private employers face a growing challenge to find the talent they need for a wide range of jobs, the leading organizations that represent state and local governments call for a national strategy to invest in the nation’s workforce. -
Reports & Toolkits
Counties and the American Rescue Plan Act Recovery Fund: Workforce Development
Across the nation, counties have experienced high unemployment rates during the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2020, over 300 counties experienced an unemployment rate of 10 percent or higher. The Recovery Fund provides counties the opportunity to bolster and strengthen the local workforce
More From
-
ARPA Impact Report: An Analysis of How Counties are Addressing National Issues With Local Investments
With American Rescue Plan funds, counties are strengthening America’s workforce, addressing the nation’s behavioral health crisis, expanding broadband access, improving housing affordability and building prosperous communities for the next generation.
Learn More