Supreme Court rules against forced fees to unions

On June 27 the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that employees cannot be forced to pay "agency fees" (LA Times, CNN). "Agency fees" refers to money that employees who aren't union members pay to a union for things such as negotiating a contract, representing employees in grievances and arbitration, and lobbying activities to foster collective bargaining negotiations or secure advocates. The agency fee is also sometimes referred to as “fair share” and “agency shop fee.”

The agency fee differs from union dues. Employees who are not dues-paying members of the union pay this fee to the union for representing them (link). Agency fees are not supposed to be used for the union's political activities. Whether they actually are or not is very difficult to identify. Of course, these non-members do not get to vote in elections for union officers or vote on whether to strike or ratify a new contract. So the ruling gives more freedom and take-home pay to non-union employees.

Pro-union people didn't like the ruling, calling it things like "an attack on the working class." Of course, it wasn't an attack on the workers who will no longer be required to pay the fees. Union leaders and pro-union politicians didn't like it because it lessened their own power and money, but they refrained from saying that, probably not wanting to be accused of being selfish.

I confess that what I know about these fees, the government rules, and union activities is not a lot. For example, I don't know by how much "agency fees" are less than union dues, but part of the difference, maybe a lot more, goes to the union's political activities. This ruling may have been a little heavy-handed. Non-union members get some benefit -- hard to say how much -- from the union's collective bargaining efforts. Wages or benefits for unionized workers "spill over" to those for non-unionized workers. On the other hand, it doesn't bother me that the ruling will likely lessen the influence of union leaders. It won't bother me if it reduces their headcount and pay. Nearly all money donated for political campaigns by unions goes to Democrats (link). An article in Fortune magazine says 40% of union members vote Republican. So why does 99% of union advocacy money go to liberal groups? Some union leaders grant themselves huge pay and benefits. They have had too much power and influence for decades, much due to government rules favoring them. Like Justice Alito wrote in his majority opinion, union leaders have been very much responsible for huge budget problems in Illinois and other states and costly public employees pensions that are badly underfunded.