Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver

California's premier full-service law firm with an emphasis on the representation of peace officers in disciplinary, criminal, labor, workers' compensation, personal injury and other civil matters.

  • About Us
  • Practice Areas
    • Labor Representation
    • Civil Litigation
    • Personal Injury
      • Example of Case Results
    • Workers’ Compensation
    • Maritime Law
    • Estate Planning
    • DOE Security Clearance Hearings
    • Peace Officers
    • Firefighters
    • EMS Agency Investigations
    • Criminal Defense
    • CalPERS Appeals
  • Our Team
  • Classes
  • Media
    • Bulletins
    • RLS in the News
  • Resources
    • Links
    • Resources
    • Newsletters
  • Clients
  • Career Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer

United States Supreme Court Undercuts Public Employee Unions by Disallowing Agency Shop Fees

June 27, 2018 by Hien Nguyen

This morning, the United States Supreme Court issued its long awaited decision in the case of Janus v. AFSCME, holding that requiring payment of a “fair share” or “agency shop” fee is unconstitutional. The decision overturns over 40 years of case law that allowed public employee unions to collect a “fair share” or “agency shop” fee from non-member bargaining unit government employees to cover the costs of collective bargaining and other non-political functions that the union was required by law to perform on behalf of such employees as a result of a union’s exclusive representative status. The Court held that non-member bargaining unit employees have a First Amendment right to refuse to financially contribute to a union’s collective bargaining activity because that activity is inherently political in its own right, as it involves issues such as a public agency’s budget, performance of government services, public employee benefit issues, and other matters of general public concern.   Now, after Janus, non-member bargaining unit employees must affirmatively consent to opt into agency shop or fair share fees before any wages may be deducted from their paycheck.

The case originated in the state of Illinois where the plaintiff, Mark Janus, a government employee, determined that he did not want to pay his required union fees as a non-member to cover the costs of collective bargaining and enforcing the contract negotiated by his union. Although Mr. Janus received all the contractual benefits that were negotiated by his union, he was not a member of the union (AFSCME) because he disagreed with many of the positions the union advocated in collective bargaining.

Prior to the decision issued today, individuals like Mr. Janus were required to pay “fair share” or “agency shop” fees to their union to cover the costs of negotiating and enforcing collective bargaining agreements and related rights. In the case of Mr. Janus he was paying approximately 78% of the full union dues, the amount apportioned to cover “non-political” union expenditures. The legal requirement for Mr. Janus to pay his fair share fees had been previously upheld by the Supreme Court in a 1977 case entitled Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. Abood upheld unions’ rights to collect fees from non-member bargaining unit employees for the non-political services the union provides.

Mr. Janus and his lawyers argued that he should not have to pay his fair share fees since the requirement violated his First Amendment right to be free from compelled political speech. Mr. Janus asserted that his union, which represents public employees, was engaged in political activity by virtue of the fact that it was organized to attempt to influence government officials to enhance its members’ collectively bargained rights and benefits. Mr. Janus argued that the Abood decision was wrongly decided since “bargaining with the government is political speech indistinguishable from lobbying the government.”

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court agreed and held that “a significant impingement on First Amendment rights occurs when public employees are required to provide financial support for a union that takes many positions during collective bargaining that have powerful political and civic consequences.” The Court eliminated the requirement under Abood that non-members pay their fair share fees to support collective bargaining efforts. The decision rejected the union’s concern that it is unfair to allow non-members a “free ride” by reaping the benefits of collective bargaining without paying their fair share, being that the union as an exclusive representative has a legal obligation to fairly represent all bargaining unit employees, members and non-members alike. The Court dismissed this concern, opining that the “free rider” problem has not harmed public employee unions in jurisdictions that do not allow compelled fair share payments, and that the government’s interest in establishing “labor peace” was illusory and otherwise insufficient to justify compelled speech. In overruling established precedent in Abood, the Court also mentioned that it was unworkable to distinguish between costs used for political purposes and those for non-political purposes which made the prior rules almost impossible to enforce.

The Court used strong language to discredit agency fees which exposed a very clear anti-union sentiment. For example, the Court opined that the prior ability to collect fees led to “abuse” by public employee unions, and that they had received a “windfall” amounting to billions of dollars in fair share fees from non-members in the decades since Abood was decided. As a law firm dedicated to supporting, protecting, and advancing the rights of public employee unions and their members, we are extremely disappointed in the outcome of this decision.

We expect that given the long history of strong solidarity in public safety unions that the overwhelming majority of employees will stand firm, particularly in light of the exclusive benefits such as legal defense that are only available to union members. We remain steadfast in protecting public sector union rights and stand ready to advise and provide guidance in the wake of this decision.

Click Here to View Decision

Disclaimer: Case law and analysis can change over time. The information in this article is accurate as of the date the article was written and should not constitute legal advice. Always consult with an attorney.

Filed Under: Bulletins

Consultation Form

Offices across California to serve you.
Contact us now to schedule a consultation.
Contact form not loading? Click here!
Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC publishes this website as a service to our clients and other friends for informational purposes only. It is not intended to be used as a substitute for specific legal advice or opinions, and the transmission of information through this website is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship between sender and receiver. Internet subscribers and online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

© 2023 Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC. All Rights Reserved. | Disclaimer

We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
Do not sell my personal information.
Cookie settingsACCEPTREJECT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT
  • Contact Us

  • News Alerts

Official logo for Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver
Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver Logo
  • About Us
  • Practice Areas
    ▼
    • Labor Representation
    • Civil Litigation
    • Personal Injury
      ▼
      • Example of Case Results
    • Workers’ Compensation
    • Maritime Law
    • Estate Planning
    • DOE Security Clearance Hearings
    • Peace Officers
    • Firefighters
    • EMS Agency Investigations
    • Criminal Defense
    • CalPERS Appeals
  • Our Team
  • Classes
  • Media
    ▼
    • Bulletins
    • RLS in the News
  • Resources
    ▼
    • Links
    • Resources
    • Newsletters
  • Clients
  • Career Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer
Hotline phone numbers. Northern California: 925-609-1699. Southern California: 310-393-1486.