People participated in a rally at the Supreme Court in Washington, Monday, Jan. 11, 2016, as the court heard arguments in the 'Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association' case. The Supreme Court deadlocked on the case, but is hearing a similar one in 2018 that would bar public sector unions from collecting fair-share fees. Jacquelyn Martin AP
People participated in a rally at the Supreme Court in Washington, Monday, Jan. 11, 2016, as the court heard arguments in the 'Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association' case. The Supreme Court deadlocked on the case, but is hearing a similar one in 2018 that would bar public sector unions from collecting fair-share fees. Jacquelyn Martin AP

Capitol Alert

The go-to source for news on California policy and politics

Capitol Alert

Trump administration: Union fees trample First Amendment

By Adam Ashton

aashton@sacbee.com

December 18, 2017 03:57 PM

Public employee unions bargaining for better wages are effectively “lobbying” government officials and should be barred from passing their fees onto workers who disagree with the political stances that labor leaders advocate, the Trump administration argues in a new Supreme Court brief.

Trump’s solicitor general filed the brief last week in Janus vs. AFSCME, an Illinois case that could cost California public employee unions thousands of members and millions of dollars.

A decision against AFSCME would forbid public employee unions from collecting so-called “fair share” fees from workers who do not want to join labor groups but benefit from representation. California is one of 22 states that allow public employee unions to charge them.

Trump favors the arguments of Mark Janus, an Illinois state worker who does not want to pay the fees because he disagrees with his union’s political advocacy. Janus contends the fees violate his First Amendment rights to support causes of his choosing.

Help us deliver journalism that makes a difference in our community.

Our journalism takes a lot of time, effort, and hard work to produce. If you read and enjoy our journalism, please consider subscribing today.

“Issues like tenure for state employees, merit pay, and the size of the state workforce are about more than money: they concern no less than the proper structure and operation of government,” Solicitor General Noel Francisco wrote. “To compel a public employee to subsidize his union’s bargaining position on these questions is to force him to support private political and ideological viewpoints with which he may strongly disagree.”

The Obama administration took the opposite stance in a similar Supreme Court cast last year that involved the California Teachers Association. After Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, the Supreme Court tied in the California case, allowing public sector unions to continue collecting mandatory fees from workers.

This year, public employee unions are pessimistic about their chances in the Janus case. Trump appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch to succeed Scalia, leading unions to believe the numbers on the court are not in their favor.

Trump’s brief offered some cold comfort to unions. It noted that the federal government does not allow fair share fees, and 27 percent of federal employees belong to labor groups.

That’s a steep drop for California’s public employee unions, which are able to charge some form of dues to all of the workers they represent.

Adam Ashton: 916-321-1063, @Adam_Ashton. Sign up for state worker news alerts at sacbee.com/newsletters.