Mandatory Union Fees Divide Demonstrators as Supreme Court Hears Arguments
The Daily Signal talks to Trey Kovacs about Janus v. AFSCME, the forced union dues case before the Supreme Court.
Trey Kovacs, a labor policy analyst with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Washington, said he sees a possible way out.
“I find this complaint about free riders very interesting, because it’s the unions who don’t want to let go of the people who do not want to be in the union,” Kovacs said. “But there is a free market solution that maybe we can all agree on. We could have members-only unions that only represent those who are paying dues and who want to belong.”
The Competitive Enterprise Institute filed a friend-of-the- court brief supporting the Janus plaintiffs that places a strong emphasis on free speech issues associated with AFSCME’s political activism.
“The Abood decision did say that these workers shouldn’t be forced to pay political activism, but when you look at what AFSCME charges them for, you will see that there is really no fine line,” Kovacs said. “If you look at charges that AFSCME has for their conventions and the causes they support, it’s impossible to enforce any rule that says these workers don’t have to fund political activism, because they do.”