Public unions dodged a bullet this week when the Supreme Court declined to overturn a 1977 ruling — Abood v. Detroit Board of Education — that allows states to force their workers to pay dues to a public union to support collective bargaining.
But the way the decision is written suggests the court is inviting another case that would allow it to do just that.
The lead plaintiff in this case was Pam Harris, an Illinois mom who cares for her disabled son at home. Under a law designed to prevent unnecessary (and expensive) institutionalization, she receives a modest salary from the government.
She and seven other home-care providers sued over an executive order that forces them to pay dues to the Service Employees International Union.
They argue that they never wanted to join this union, and they do not want the money going to support the union’s political activities, which they do not necessarily support.
In a 5-4 decision written by Justice Samuel Alito, the court narrowly held that Illinois can’t just call people like Harris state employees — so the dues requirement doesn’t apply.
As a result, public-sector union leaders such as our own Mike Mulgrew of the United Federation of Teachers are claiming the decision has no implications beyond home-care workers in Illinois.
But Mulgrew & Co. may be in for a surprise. Notwithstanding the court’s refusal to strike down Abood, Alito called that earlier ruling “questionable.”
For public unions, he pointedly noted, collective bargaining is inherently political because it is directed at the government — their employers. And he called it a “bedrock principle that . . . no person in this country may be compelled to subsidize speech by a third party that he or she does not wish to support.”
Which suggests the court is looking for a better case to redress its terrible ruling in Abood, which has the government forcing workers to pay dues to public unions.
All we can say is: Bring it on.