Page 19 - 01A_CL7_APR18.indd

being asked to determine whether requiring Friedrichs to pay mandatory dues for union activities violated the First Amendment.
Friedrichs argued that she should not have to pay any union dues, since any forced payment would violate her First Amendment right to free speech. Instead, she would expect the union to represent her at no cost. Many believed that this case would be a prelude to attacks on all unions’ abilities to require dues payments.
Currently, it is settled that public employees who are not members of the union cannot be required to pay fees that a union would use for political activity like union organizing. However, under a controlling 1977 Supreme Court case called Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, these “non-members” can be required to pay a “fair share” or “agency” fee to cov- er the union’s cost of negotiating a contract covering all the public employees. The question which the justices sought to address in Friedrichs was whether requiring an objecting employee to pay even this more limited fee violates the First Amendment. In other words, she asked the Supreme Court to overturn Abood.
The Supreme Court’s decision, issued on March 29, 2016, resulted (as predicted) in a 4-4 tie, meaning that the lower court rulings would stand. Accordingly, Abood continues to be the law of the land. However, it did not take long for another case to be sped through the lower courts’ docket and challenge Abood once more, this time to a full Supreme Court with nine justices.
In Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Mu- nicipal Employees, Council 31, Illinois government employ- ee Mark Janus is asking the justices to overturn the Abood decision. He argued in his petition to the court that the fees amount to compelled speech, requiring him to subsi- dize political views that he does not support, in violation of the First Amendment. Because unions play a powerful civic and political role when striking collective-bargaining agreements, he considers this work to be inseparable from a union’s other political or ideological activities.
Organized-labor groups strongly disagree with Janus’s interpretation and opposed efforts to reconsider the 1977 precedent. Unions use the term “fair-share payments” be- cause, they argue, the fees prevent non-members from freeriding on the collective-bargaining services from which they benefit. If Janus prevails and Abood is overturned, the court’s ruling could effectively act as a nationwide right-to- work law for the country’s public-sector workers, with po- tentially crushing implications for the funding and resourc- es of the unions that represent them.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Feb. 26, and a decision is expected relatively soon (perhaps by June). The National FOP filed an amicus brief opposing Janus and sup- porting the Abood precedent. d
CHICAGO LODGE 7 ■ APRIL 2018 19