It looks like we’re getting closer to seeing the end of mandatory fees paid to public sector unions. If you see the way the state media is writing about this potential (see the LA Times example below), you’d think that forcing people to pay fees to belong to an organization they might not necessarily want to belong to was the good and noble act to preserve.
Allowing people the freedom to choose what organizations they belong to (and thus, who gets paid fees) is a bad thing. This makes sense. After all, “our” membership in the coercive enterprise known as the United States of America is not un-similar.
The Supreme Court appears to be leaning heavily towards declaring mandatory public sector Union fees are a violation of free speech.
Maybe it’s not so much a violation of free speech as it is a violation of free association, but either way, if the public sector unions lose their power to coercively gain and hold on to members, that’s fine by me.
Just to remind you, these are unions that work to empower government employees to get higher pay and benefits that are paid for through taxation, a form of forced membership dues, but don’t tell the Supreme Court that.
Supreme Court appears set to strike down mandatory union fees in case originally brought by Rauner
Paying union dues and baking a wedding cake may not seem like classic examples of free speech—except perhaps at the Supreme Court.
This year, the high court is poised to announce its most significant expansion of the 1st Amendment since the Citizens United decision in 2010, which struck down laws that limited campaign spending by corporations, unions and the very wealthy.
Now the “money is speech” doctrine is back and at the heart of a case to be heard this month that threatens the financial foundation of public employee unions in 22 “blue” states.
Like Citizens United, the union case is being closely watched for its potential to shift political power in states and across the nation.