Supreme Court Janus ruling may not lead to fewer union members, both sides say

The Plain Dealer
By Olivera Perkins
June 28, 2018

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruling Wednesday that public-sector workers don't have to contribute to unions representing them doesn't necessarily mean membership in government unions will plummet, say both supporters and opponents of the decision.

The Supreme Court's ruling on Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31, was much awaited because it focused on a 41-year-old decision, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, that had allowed states to require public employees pay some fees to unions they chose not to join. The court ruled that public-sector unions can't require workers, who choose not to join, to pay an agency fee to the union that still must represent them. The agency fee cannot be more than membership dues, which workers who join the union pay.

Ohio AFL-CIO President Tim Burga viewed the ruling as anything but a death knell, and a conservative Ohio institute official agrees.

"This decision comes just as millions of workers across the country are recommitting to unions with new organizing drives and growing ranks in important sectors of our economy right here in Ohio," he said in a news release.

Many in Ohio viewed the Janus case with high interest. Ohio has consistently ranked in the top 10 for union membership, according to the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics. Here, as throughout the United States, as private-sector union membership has declined with the loss of manufacturing and other once heavily-unionized industries, public-sector membership has remained stable. Additionally, there have been ongoing failed attempts to make Ohio a right-to-work state.

"The labor movement, however, remains undeterred," Burga wrote. "We have faced similar attacks in Ohio and ultimately prevailed. Powered by our membership and carried by the expressed support of a vast majority of Ohioans, labor unions will continue to fight to sustain our families, improve our workplaces and make our communities stronger regardless of the court's ruling."

See: Ohio unions rally in advance of Supreme Court case related to funding.

Robert Alt, president and CEO of the conservative Buckeye Institute, based in Columbus, supports the court's decision. The think tank filed a "friend of the court brief," with the Supreme Court in support of the Janus case.

"The court made clear that employees need to affirmatively consent before money is taken from them by the union," Alt said of Wednesday's ruling. "For those workers, who are happy with their union, the decision isn't going to make much of a difference; they are going to continue supporting their union. For those workers who were dissatisfied, who believed the unions were spending money for causes for which they disagreed, they feel they have a choice."

Still, like, Burga, he doesn't believe it is a given that the decision will adversely affect public sector unions.

"We're not writing on a blank slate," Alt said of the decision. "Federal public employees are subject to a rule similar to this. Right-to-work states have rules similar to this. When you take the federal public employee unions, they are able to operate and represent their members.

"In right-to-work states -- we actually found in researching the [Janus] case -- that oftentimes after an initial dip in union membership, you would see an increase in union membership rates," he said.

"Unions have been able to pick up members in states that have gone to a choice model rather than a compulsory model "

The case was brought by Mark Janus, a child-support specialist at the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services. In a 2016 commentary he wrote for the Chicago Tribune, Janus said why he sued his union.

"The union voice is not my voice," he wrote. "The union's fight is not my fight. But a piece of my paycheck every week still goes to the union."

A memo from the national AFL-CIO general counsels didn't appear to express alarm about the Janus win.

"It is important to remember that the ruling will apply only to nonmembers," the memo states. "The Court's decision has no application to members. Even in states with so-called "Right-to-work" laws that prevent collection of fair share fees from non-members, close to 85 percent of those represented by unions voluntarily choose to be union members. Janus does not affect them."