Union position in SCOTUS case has Thomas Jefferson rolling in his grave

Union position in SCOTUS case has Thomas Jefferson rolling in his grave
© Getty Images

For almost two centuries, Thomas Jefferson has been rolling in his grave. Jefferson, in the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, wrote that, “To compel a man to furnish contributions of funds for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” He knew that the right to speak freely includes the right to support speech by others, and the right to support speech by others includes, by definition, the right not to support speech by others.

Sadly, labor unions compel citizens to furnish funds for the propagation of opinions they disbelieve and abhor every day, by using the dues collected from members and “agency fees” collected from non-members to engage in political activity many of their members and non-members oppose.

ADVERTISEMENT
That’s what’s at stake in Janus v. AFSCME, a case heard Monday by the Supreme Court. Mark Janus is an Illinois child support specialist who’s suing the union over “agency fees” collected from non-members to cover their share of collective bargaining costs. Those “agency fees” typically run around 80 percent as much as union dues in total. Janus argues that the payments he is compelled to make are a violation of his First Amendment right not to be compelled to pay for speech he opposes.

The case is very similar to Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, which was heard by the Supreme Court in 2016. In that case, the Supreme Court deadlocked at 4-4 after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Though Justice Neil Gorsuch, who replaced Scalia, was surprisingly circumspect in Monday’s argument, where he asked no questions, he is expected to tip the balance to 5-4 against the forced payment of union collective bargaining fees for non-members.

If that happens, union members and non-members alike could be freed from their current obligation to pay for political speech they oppose, and political activity by public sector unions could be severely restricted. Meanwhile, there’s also activity on the legislative front. Supporters of the right of employees to speak freely — and to withhold payment for speech they oppose — have introduced into the Employee Rights Act.

The bill has eight core provisions. It would mandate secret ballot elections to determine union representation, create union recertification elections when at least half of the originally unionized employees have left their workplace, require opt-in instead of opt-out systems for voluntary contributions to support union political operations, and change the victory threshold for a union certification election so the electoral universe is all the affected employees, rather than just those who vote in the election, and require that a union win a majority vote of the entire electoral universe, rather than just a majority of those who vote.

It would also allow employees not to provide personal information to union organizers, provide more protections from union coercion blocking decertification of an already existing union, require secret ballots for strike votes, thereby eliminating the option to vote at union meetings, where pressure is most easily brought to bear against those who are opposed, and criminalize union threats and violence.

The bill has 151 cosponsors in the House, including two members of Republican leadership, Conference Chairman Cathy McMorris RodgersCathy McMorris RodgersHillicon Valley: Republicans demand answers from mobile carriers on data practices | Top carriers to stop selling location data | DOJ probing Huawei | T-Mobile execs stayed at Trump hotel as merger awaited approval House Republicans question mobile carriers on data practices Washington governor announces killer whale recovery plan MORE and Chief Deputy Whip Patrick McHenryPatrick Timothy McHenryNew push to open banks to marijuana industry On The Money: Consumer bureau proposes scrapping borrower safeguards from payday loan rule | Negotiators running out of time to avert shutdown | Trump nominates World Bank critic as its next chief On The Money: Shutdown Day 26 | Pelosi calls on Trump to delay State of the Union | Cites 'security concerns' | DHS chief says they can handle security | Waters lays out agenda | Senate rejects effort to block Trump on Russia sanctions MORE. In the Senate, it has 29 cosponsors, including Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellFox News has covered Ocasio-Cortez more than any 2020 Dem besides Warren: analysis Durbin after reading Green New Deal: 'What in the heck is this?' Dems think they're beating Trump in emergency declaration battle MORE and Majority Whip John CornynJohn CornynO’Rourke not ruling out being vice presidential candidate O'Rourke mulling another Senate run as well as presidential bid Texas senator introduces bill to produce coin honoring Bushes MORE.

Just as importantly, the House version of the bill is cosponsored by roughly 80 percent of the Republicans on the Education and Workforce Committee, the committee of jurisdiction. Further, Committee Chairwoman Virginia FoxxVirginia Ann FoxxBlack Caucus sees power grow with new Democratic majority A 2 billion challenge: Transforming US grant reporting Trump calls North Carolina redistricting ruling ‘unfair’ MORE and Subcommittee Chairman Tim WalbergTimothy (Tim) Lee WalbergCongress must take the next steps on federal criminal justice reforms Midterm results shake up national map Dems seek to rebuild blue wall in Rust Belt contests MORE are known to support the legislation, even though following longstanding tradition, they will not add their names as cosponsors until they get ready to move the bill through committee.

Moreover, House supporters indicate that there are dozens of members who, for their own political reasons, will not add their names to the list of cosponsors, but will vote for the measure if and when it’s brought to the floor. The House GOP leadership should bring this bill to the floor, and the Senate GOP leadership should prepare to attach it to an upcoming must-pass bill, such as the anticipated omnibus spending bill that will be on the floor later in March.

Doing so would be both good policy, by freeing employees from being compelled to pay for political speech they oppose, and good politics, by reducing big labor’s political spending. The odds are that the Supreme Court will weigh in with a favorable ruling, to boot. Perhaps, finally, Jefferson will be allowed to rest quietly.

Jenny Beth Martin is chairman of Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund.