The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against labor unions June 27, deciding unions representing public-sector employees, including healthcare workers, cannot continue collecting fees from those who choose not to be represented, reports The New York Times.
Here are five things to know:
1. The case, Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, centers on whether unions representing public-sector employees should be able to continue collecting "fair share" fees from nonmembers to help pay for collective bargaining. It affects various U.S. labor groups, including healthcare unions, as about 5 million nonmember public-sector workers in more than 20 states paid these fees as of February.
2. The case challenged a 1977 Supreme Court opinion in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. In the Abood case, the court said requiring nonmembers to pay for union political activities was unconstitutional, but unions could require nonmembers to help subsidize collective bargaining efforts, paying about 78 percent of what union members pay, according to The Times..
3. Mark Janus, an Illinois child support specialist who decided not to join the AFSCME, was the plaintiff. Mr. Janus challenged the 1977 opinion, arguing he shouldn't have to help pay for efforts by a union he doesn't support, NYT reported.
4. Ultimately, the Supreme Court sided with Mr. Janus in a 5-4 vote that included more conservative justices in the majority. The court cited the First Amendment in the reasoning behind the decision.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the court's opinion: "Under Illinois law, public employees are forced to subsidize a union, even if they choose not to join and strongly object to the positions the union takes in collective bargaining and related activities. We conclude that this arrangement violates the free speech rights of nonmembers by compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern."
He added: "We upheld a similar law in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, and we recognize the importance of following precedent unless there are strong reasons for not doing so. But there are very strong reasons in this case. Fundamental free speech rights are at stake. Abood was poorly reasoned. It has led to practical problems and abuse. It is inconsistent with other First Amendment cases and has been undermined by more recent decisions. Developments since Abood was handed down have shed new light on the issue of agency fees, and no reliance interests on the part of public-sector unions are sufficient to justify the perpetuation of the free speech violations."
5. The ruling has sparked mixed reactions.
President Donald Trump praised the ruling on Twitter, calling it a "big loss for the coffers of the Democrats."
However, unions disagreed with the court's reasoning, arguing that workers who choose not to unionize already may be reimbursed for payments that go toward political activities, according to The Times..
Tim Foley, executive vice president of 1199 Service Employees International Union United Healthcare Workers East, said in a statement to Becker's Hospital Review: The decision "is a victory for special interests, big corporations and all those who seek to limit the ability of workers to collectively advocate for issues important to working Americans."
He added: "Despite this decision, the labor movement is strong. We'll continue to use our voices to advocate for policies that promote social and economic justice and basic fairness for all workers.”
More articles on legal and regulatory issues:
Colorado health system sues patient over $229K surgery bill, jury awards $766
Nurse pleads guilty in $60M fraud scheme that allegedly involved accelerating patient deaths
CHS: Microsoft's copyright infringement claims are barred