Labor Movement Standing Tall After Supreme Court Decision
Landmark June ruling brought severe consequences for labor unions, but a Rutgers expert argues they will adapt and survive
On the first Labor Day following the Supreme Court ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, unions in New Jersey and across the country are eyeing an uncertain future. In a 5-4 decision announced on June 27, the Court found that public employees who decline union representation do not have to pay an “agency fee” – even though they still benefit from the collective bargaining agreement. Michael Merrill, professor of professional practice and director of the Labor Education Action Research Network (LEARN) at the Rutgers School of Management and Labor Relations, tells Rutgers Today the ruling is damaging but not deadly to unions.
Heading into the first Labor Day since the Janus ruling, how would you characterize the mood of the labor movement?
Defiant. The Janus ruling is intended to slay the dragon of public-sector unionism, but it will not work. The beating heart of the movement is beyond the reach of the Supreme Court. It can be found wherever there is work to be done and a collective body of wage earners enlisted to do it. Workers work, day after day, recognized and unrecognized, and they know what they are worth. They also know what they are owed, even when politicians do not. For that reason, they will continue to insist on their legitimate rights, as they have always done, even to the point of disruption.
Are unions in New Jersey already seeing negative effects – declines in membership, loss of financial resources – because of the decision?
Too soon to tell. The effects will be sorted out over time, and they will be different in every state. New Jersey’s public-sector unions, for example, are likely to lose fewer members than other, less union-friendly jurisdictions. But the ruling will certainly make a difference. Where state “right-to-work” laws have been adopted, membership in teachers’ unions has fallen by as much as 50 percent. Every loss of members is a loss of resources and leverage.
What are the conservative donors behind the Janus case doing now?
The goal of the forces that fund the “right-to-work” movement is to abolish unions. These forces will continue to chip away at the ability of wage earners to have a choice and a voice at work. It is important to remember that more is involved here than mere greed. The people in power are scared because sharing power is scary. It requires trust and self-confidence. Without them, it becomes harder and harder to secure the mutual gains that cooperation affords.
How can unions and the broader labor movement regroup from the ruling?
The most important thing the unions can do is to continue to engage their rank-and-file – or, if they do not engage them yet, to start. They need to trust and believe in their members. When they do, their members will trust and believe in them. Moreover, the unions need to trust and believe in their non-members as well. Unions grow when the public supports them. When the public opposes them, the unions are lucky to hold their ground. I am confident the movement is up to the challenge. The history of labor in the U.S. has not been a cakewalk. Unions have had to overcome obstacles every single day of their existence. The very act of protesting inadequate wages and bad working conditions has been criminalized for much of our history.
What is next for unions and the labor movement in general?
The radical right has vowed to drown the government in a bathtub, and it sees destroying the unions – de-legitimizing the labor movement – as a key to its strategy. If the powers that be do not include unions as part of their solution, the unions will prove to be, as they have often been in the past, part of their problem. As we have seen with the Fight for $15 movement, the growth of immigrant worker centers, and the “red waves” of teachers striking across the country last year, new frontiers of organizing are finding their voice and strength every day.