ShareThis Page
John Stossel: Right-to-work ruling coming from Supremes |
Featured Commentary

John Stossel: Right-to-work ruling coming from Supremes

John Stossel
| Friday, February 23, 2018 8:57 p.m
Getty Images
Front row from left, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas and Associate Justice Stephen Breyer; back row from left, Associate Justice Elena Kagan, Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr., Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch. They posed for this group portrait in the East Conference Room of the Supreme Court on June 1, 2017, in Washington, D.C.

If your workplace is a union shop, are you forced to pay union dues? Next week, the Supreme Court will hear arguments about that.

When I worked at CBS and ABC, I was ordered to join the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. I said, “I’m no ‘artist.’ I’m a reporter! I won’t join!” But my bosses said they couldn’t pay me unless I did.

In the 27 right-to-work states — New York and Pennsylvania aren’t among them — unions can’t force people to join. But the Supreme Court may say that no government worker, in any state, can be forced to pay a union.

That outcome would thrill Rebecca Friedrichs, the teacher who filed a right-to-work lawsuit that went to the Supreme Court two years ago. She got mad at the California Teachers Association during the last recession. Good teachers at her school were about to be laid off. She’d tried to protect them by getting all teachers to agree to a slight pay cut. But the union wouldn’t even allow her to survey other teachers. That helped make Friedrichs angry enough to sue her union. Three years later, the Supreme Court agreed to hear her case.

Supreme Court watchers predicted she would win. Union cheerleaders were pessimistic. But shortly before the justices voted, Antonin Scalia died, and without his vote, they deadlocked 4-4. “That was the most devastating day,” says Friedrichs.

Now before the court is a lawsuit filed by government worker Mark Janus. With Neil Gorsuch the ninth justice, unions are worried — so worried that Steven Kreisberg of AFSCME, the big government-employees union, agreed to do one of my YouTube interviews.

“Our members … want their union to have power,” he said. “It’s (Janus’) right to dissent and not be a member of our union. He only has to pay the fees that are used to represent him.”

But what’s the point of dissenting from the union if you still have to pay? Janus doesn’t want to be forced to pay for something he doesn’t agree with.

Kreisberg replied, “I’m not sure if he doesn’t agree with it, or just simply doesn’t want to pay because he’d like to get those services for free.”

That’s an argument a free-market advocate can understand. But who judges what is a “benefit”?

“If I saw their representation as a benefit, I could agree with that, but I don’t,” Friedrichs said. “The benefits aren’t worth the moral costs.”

Kreisberg responded, “That sounds like the words of a right-wing activist, not the words of a teacher.”

Janus’ lawsuit points out that Thomas Jefferson wrote, “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” Kreisberg’s answer: “Thomas Jefferson had no sense of 21st-century labor relations.”

That’s probably true. But some principles are eternal, like deciding what to do with your own money and not being forced to fund speech with which you disagree.

The justices will rule this summer. I hope they’ll side with Jefferson. Forcing people to pay for what they don’t want is tyranny.

John Stossel is author of “No They Can’t! Why Government Fails — But Individuals Succeed.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.