Gorsuch Spells Trouble for Public Unions
Conservatives and public unions just don’t mix – and it’s not because Republicans are crony capitalists. The reason is simple: Republicans know public unions overwhelmingly provide campaign funding to Democrats, who reciprocate by doing the union’s bidding. Dig a little deeper to find deep philosophical differences on personal freedom, liberty and collectivism, on which the Supreme Court often must rule. Neil Gorsuch could not have arrived at a better time for the ultimate battle between personal liberty and union collectivism.
There was a time when trade unions were required to protect American workers. For example, coal miners once needed a strong union to negotiate safety, health, wages, and retirement benefits – and they voted for Democrats. In 1964, Lyndon Johnson won 67.9 percent of the West Virginia popular vote, but Donald Trump won 68.7 percent of the West Virginia popular vote in 2016. This is true, suggesting the arc of employment history is bending towards the individual and away from the collective. Three mega-trends are behind this history.
State and federal governments have steadily expanded the public safety net for workers. This includes creation of Social Security and the National Labor Relations Board in 1935, the Minimum Wage Law in 1938, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in 1971. In short, governments have stepped in with statutes, making unions non-essential for most workers. Even a dirty-faced coal miner knows Jimmy Hoffa is no match for Uncle Sam.
Voters have turned against state employees and their unions because of sweetheart retirement and benefit packages that have made state after state insolvent. Tax payers in blue states realize too much of their taxes goes to fund sweetheart retirements for former government employees. For example, Oregon has one retired state-health executive drawing $71,000 in monthly retirement pay, when the average tax payer only earns $51,000 annually.
Within the union membership, many public employees resent the social agendas espoused by public trade unions and the candidates they fund. Just because a Catholic woman works as a school teacher in Brooklyn doesn’t mean she abandons her pro-life position. And the black police officer in Oakland might not like his dues funding a mayoral candidate and her sanctuary-city policies. Bottom line: many public employees don’t want any part of their union dues to fund candidates with extreme leftist positions.
A few weeks ago, the Michigan Supreme Court struck down the Michigan Education Association’s (MEA) requirement that members either leave in August or wait another year. Actually, the high court decided not to weigh in on a 2015 lower court decision that granted Michigan teachers the right to leave their unions at any time of the individual’s choosing. Combined with the state’s right-to-work laws, which ended agency fees paid by non-members to unions, Michigan Republicans have helped MEA membership decline 25 percent over the last five years.
Michigan followed Wisconsin to weaken state teachers’ unions. Wisconsin eliminated agency fees in 2011, and Wisconsin’s National Education Association membership has declined 60 percent. The NEA might bitch and moan; but losing between 25 and 60 percent of their members suggests teachers in former union strongholds just did not feel truly represented. Enter the Supreme Court and Neil Gorsuch.
In June, the high court will rule in Janus vs. AFSCME whether agency fees are constitutional. Agency fees are still legal in 21 states, and Gorsuch is expected to tip the court into a 5-4 decision that outlaws agency fees nationwide. The two big teachers’ unions, AFOT and NEA, are already preparing for life without agency fees: instituting extended dues-paying agreements, which would force ex-members to keep paying dues after resigning. Enter the Supreme Court yet again.
Another public union case, Yohn vs. CTA, awaits the high court. Ryan Yohn and seven other California teachers want to end the California Teachers Association’s opt-out restrictions. Yohn argues, “the opt-in/opt-out issue is just as a much a First Amendment issue as the compulsory dues issue. In both Janus and Yohn, individual teachers are pushing back on forced membership in unions, which have long been propped up by Democrat-sponsored pro-union laws.
Should the Supreme Court rule in favor of Janus and Yohn, union leaders estimate teacher membership declines of 50 percent – and what does that suggest? It suggests that American individualism is growing, while collectivism is declining. It suggests that public employees feel so under-served by public unions on financial issues they will not tolerate their dues going to political causes they do not support. It suggests individual freedom and liberty are alive and well when a few teachers can go to court to defend their right to choose. This is why conservatives celebrated the arrival of Neil Gorsuch. And CNN had you convinced you weren’t having any fun – wrong!