<p>The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that unions cannot force government employees to pay dues. ;</p>
<p>The ruling essentially overturns a 41-year-old decision that had given states the authority to decide whether public employees, including non-members, were required to contribute to the unions that represent them.</p>
<p>&ldquo;The 5-4 decision fulfills a longtime wish of conservatives to get rid of the so-called &#8216;fair share&#8217; fees that non-members pay to unions in roughly two dozen states,&rdquo; reports<em> Newsmax</em>.</p>
<p>In his majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito explained that forcing non-members to pay dues is a violation of the <em>First Amendment</em> because in some cases it forces employees to financially contribute to a group with opposing political views. &ldquo;Neither an agency fee nor any other payment to the union may be deducted from a non-member&rsquo;s wages, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay,&rdquo; wrote Alito. ;</p>
<p>The dissenting justices bemoaned the fate of labor unions and accused their conservative fellows of misrepresenting the <em>First Amendment. ;</em></p>
<p>The majority ruling &ldquo;overthrows a decision entrenched in this nation&rsquo;s law&hellip;for over 40 years,&rdquo; wrote Justice Elena Kagan. &ldquo;It prevents the American people&hellip;from making important choices about workplace governance. And it does so by weaponizing the <em>First Amendment</em> ;in a way that unleashes judges, now and in the future, to intervene in economic and regulatory policy.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Kagan was joined in her dissenting opinion by ;Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader GInsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor.</p>
<p>&ldquo;Almost all economic regulatory policy affects or touches speech,&rdquo; continued Kagan. &ldquo;So the majority&rsquo;s road runs long. And at every stop are black-robed rulers overriding citizens&rsquo; choices. The <em>First Amendment</em> was meant for better things. It was meant not to undermine but to protect democratic governance &#8211; including over the role of public-sector unions.&rdquo;</p>
<p>The Supreme Court ;considered a similar case ;on fair share fees in 2016, but the ruling was split 4-4 following the ;surprise death of Justice Antonin Scalia.</p>
<p><strong>Last year, unions strongly opposed President Trump&#8217;s nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the bench.</strong></p>
<p>&#8220;Supreme Court rules in favor of non-union workers who are now, as an example, able to support a candidate of his or her choice without having those who control the union deciding for them,&rdquo; ;Trump tweeted on Wednesday. &ldquo;Big loss for the coffers of the Democrats!&rdquo;</p>
<p>Nearly 30 states have &#8220;right-to-work&#8221; laws that ban unions from demanding fair share fees, but a majority of public-sector union members live in states that don&rsquo;t (such as New York, California, and Illinois). In states without right-to-work laws, unions insist fair share fees are necessary to conduct collective bargaining for wage and benefit increases, workplace safety, and grievance procedures. This work benefits all employees &#8211; not just members.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court&#8217;s ruling stands to affect more than 5 million government workers throughout the country, and could lead to a 10% decrease in union membership. ;</p>
<p>Labor unions might &ldquo;experience unpleasant transition costs in the short term,&rdquo; noted Alito, but should not forget about the &ldquo;considerable windfall&rdquo; they have enjoyed for the past 41 years. ;</p>
<p>According to <em>The ;New York Times</em>, however, some labor unions have been preparing for the Supreme Court ruling ;by tightening relationships with existing members and investing in aggressive membership campaigns. ;</p>
<p>&ldquo;No one wanted this case,&rdquo; said President Randi Weingarten of the American Federation of Teachers. &ldquo;But the gestalt around the country has been to turn an existential threat into an opportunity to engage with our members like never before.&rdquo; ;</p>
<p>In the meantime, conservatives groups are bringing lawsuits to retroactively recover fees collected by unions from non-members as well as running campaigns aimed to convince workers to leave their unions.</p>
<p><strong>Editor&#8217;s note</strong>: This is a major blow to the financing and overall power of unions. And with the subsequent lawsuits, it could bring some of them all the way down.</p>