Gain a global perspective on the US and go beyond with curated news and analysis from 600 journalists in 50+ countries covering politics, business, innovation, trends and more.<doc-sep>A landmark Supreme Court decision Wednesday could deal a financial blow to public-sector unions and public pensions, hobbling a last remaining bastion for the worker organizations in the U.S. But a counteroffensive by the groups could bolster them. In a 5-4 decision, the high court ruled that unions can’t collect fees from nonmembers to defray the costs of collective bargaining. Twenty-two states – including populous ones such as California, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania – have allowed unions to assess the fees on nonunion members, who benefit from collective-bargaining agreements anyway. About 5 million workers in those states could be affected. The other 28 states are right-to-work states where the fees can’t be collected or they’re states that don’t permit collective bargaining anyway. More Money:Miss them? Taco Bell's Nacho Fries are making a comeback More Money:Creepy Burger King mascot speaks his first word thanks to Budweiser. Asks "Whassup!?" More Money:Home Depot joins Walmart, others in installing lockers in stores for online orders Union officials will now lose the contributions of the nonunion members, though the vast majority of workers in government agencies that collectively bargain are union members, says Paul Clark, director of the school of labor and employment relations at Penn State University. The bigger concern, he says, is that a significant portion of public sector union members could leave the worker organizations. “This is just another step in a longtime effort to weaken the labor movement in the U.S.,” Clark says. Union membership has fallen from 35 percent of the workforce in World War II to 20 percent in 1983 and 10.7 percent today, according to the Labor Department. While the ranks of private-sector union workers have steadily declined and make up just 6.5 percent of the labor force, public unions have grown and comprise 34.4 percent of all government employees. They're now threatened. Clark says unions already have mobilized in anticipation of the ruling and are likely to market themselves more aggressively at a time when support for unions is growing. Lee Saunders, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, said recent teachers walkouts in multiple states suggest that unions are gaining steam. “The Court’s decision ... cannot stop this momentum,” Saunders said in an emailed statement in response to USA TODAY questions. “If anything, it will accelerate it, triggering a backlash that further emboldens union members to stick together.” Gary Jones, the recently elected president of the United Auto Workers union, which represents some government employees, said in a statement that the ruling was “just another barrier and another attack on working men and women.” “It cannot, however, take away the powerful voice that UAW members and other unions deliver when they sit across the table and collectively bargain for their families, their safety and their communities,” Jones said. At the same time, Clark says proponents of corporate interests, including the Koch brothers, have also signaled they’ll mount a multimillion-dollar campaign to convince union workers to drop out and reap the same benefits without paying the fees. They're likely to significantly outgun the unions. “That could make the situation more dire than it otherwise would be,” Clark says. Union members typically pay 1 to 2 percent of wages in collective-bargaining fees, or $500 to $1,000 for a worker with a $50,000 salary. The fees pay for lawyers, negotiators, research and communication for collective-bargaining and for routine activities such as filing grievances. Clark figures that with unions mobilizing, they're likely to lose just 10 to 15 percent of members and financing – losses they could offset by shifting responsibilities. But he said the corporate lobbying campaigns could result in a loss of 25 to 30 percent of members and financing. That would have a serious negative impact on resources and could spur existing union members to defect, creating a vicious cycle that decimates public unions. Any sign of public unions getting politically weaker could energize state and local governments to take action to slash pension and health care benefits, which are a major source of their funding challenges. Forced to pay for compensation pledges for past and future retirees, cities, counties, townships, school districts and states collectively had only 71.6 percent of the funding they needed to pay future pension obligations as of 2016, according to data compiled by a coalition of researchers, including the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. Pension deficits have fueled financial problems for many governments, including 2013’s municipal bankruptcy of Detroit and massive shortfalls in Illinois and New Jersey. The ruling is “good for governments” in general, said Matt Fabian, managing director of Municipal Market Analytics, who tracks the financial health of state and local governmental units. “In general, weakening union revenues is generically a small positive for government managers and governments’ other creditors, like bondholders and taxpayers.” Wisconsin offers a window into how the U.S. Supreme Court decision might play out. In 2011, GOP Gov. Scott Walker and Republican lawmakers all but eliminated collective bargaining for public employees and ended the requirement that they pay union fees. As a result, public workers left unions in droves. In 2015, Walker signed what supporters call a right-to-work law that allowed private-sector workers to avoid paying union fees. In 2010 – the year before Walker began making changes to union laws – 355,000 workers in Wisconsin belonged to a public- or private-sector union, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. By 2017, the number had dropped by 35%, to 230,000. It’s unclear if the changes will be as dramatic across the country after Wednesday’s decision. Public-sector unions in Wisconsin lost most of their powers, leaving workers with few incentives to continue to pay to belong to them. Under the Supreme Court ruling, workers can get out of paying fees, but unions still have the ability to negotiate over a broad swath of issues in many states, which gives them a chance to make their case to workers that they’re worth investing in. Lester Pines, an attorney who represents teachers unions in Wisconsin, said Wednesday's decision would hurt unions across the country but would not destroy them.<doc-sep>U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg participates in an annual Women's History Month reception hosted by Pelosi in the U.S. capitol building on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. This year's event honored the women Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court: Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, celebrating her 20th anniversary on the bench, is photographed in the West conference room at the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on Friday, August 30, 2013. (Photo by Nikki Kahn/The Washington Post via Getty Images) WASHINGTON - JUNE 25: The exterior view of the U.S. Supreme Court is seen June 25, 2007 in Washington, DC. The Supreme Court has ruled to give more freedom for interest groups and unions to run TV ads before elections, and also ruled to limit taxpayers' rights to challenge government initiatives as unconstitutionally promoting religion. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images) U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy testifies before the House Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee on Capitol Hill March 8, 2007 in Washington, DC. Kennedy and Justice Clarence Thomas spoke about concerns with the ongoing remodeling of the court building, the reduction of paperwork due to electronic media and the disparity of pay between federal judges and lawyers working in the private sector. WASHINGTON, DC - FEBRUARY 12: Members of the Supreme Court, (L-R) Chief Justice John Roberts and associate justices Anthony Kennendy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, applaud as U.S. President Barack Obama arrives to deliver his State of the Union speech before a joint session of Congress at the U.S. Capitol February 12, 2013 in Washington, DC. Facing a divided Congress, Obama focused his speech on new initiatives designed to stimulate the U.S. economy and said, 'It?s not a bigger government we need, but a smarter government that sets priorities and invests in broad-based growth'. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) FILE - In this Oct. 10, 2017, file photo, the Supreme Court in Washington is seen at sunset. The Supreme Court is ordering Washington courts to take a new look at the case of a florist who refused to provide services for the wedding of two men because of her religious objection to same-sex marriage. The justices' order Monday means the court is passing for now on the chance to decide whether business owners can refuse on religious grounds to comply with anti-discrimination laws that protect LGBT people. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File) WASHINGTON - MARCH 08: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy testifies before the House Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee on Capitol Hill March 8, 2007 in Washington, DC. Thomas and fellow Justice Clarence Thomas spoke about concerns with the ongoing remodeling of the court building, the reduction of paperwork due to electronic media and the disparity of pay between federal judges and lawyers working in the private sector. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) Justices of the US Supreme Court sit for their official group photo at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on June 1, 2017. Seated (L-R): Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Anthony M. Kennedy, Chief Justice of the US John G. Roberts, Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer. Standing (L-R): Associate Justices Elena Kagan, Samuel Alito Jr., Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch. / AFP PHOTO / SAUL LOEB (Photo credit should read SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images) WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 23: People wait in line to enter the U.S. Supreme Court, on April 23, 2018 in Washington, DC. Today the high court is hearing arguments in Chavez-Mesa v. US, which concerns a technical matter regarding sentencing guidelines. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein will be representing the government. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images) Just how old are the Supreme Court justices? Front row from left, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, and Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, back row from left, Associate Justice Elena Kagan, Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr., Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch pose for a group portrait in the East Conference Room of the Supreme Court June 1, 2017 in Washington, DC. People gather outside the Supreme Court during oral arguments in the U.S. v. Micosoft case February 27, 2018 in Washington, DC. (CNN) — The Supreme Court dealt a major blow to public sector unions on Wednesday in a case that could shake their financial structure and undermine their future stability. The justices struck down an Illinois law that required non-union workers to pay fees that go to collective bargaining and overturned a 1977 law that required employees to pay so-called “fair share” fees. The ruling was 5-4 along familiar ideological lines, with conservative Justice Samuel Alito writing for the majority in a case that highlights how the blocking of President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee has dramatically changed the legal and political landscape. “It is hard to estimate how many billions of dollars have been taken from nonmembers and transferred to public-sector unions in violation of the First Amendment. Those unconstitutional exactions cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely,” Alito wrote. In a blistering dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote, “The First Amendment was meant for better things. It was meant not to undermine but to protect democratic governance – including over the role of public-sector unions.” Reading from the bench, a move justice only does when he or she thinks a ruling is egregiously wrong, Kagan added: “There’s no sugarcoating today’s opinion.” The ruling is another key example where the Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell’s move to block Judge Merrick Garland in 2016 after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia has paid dividends for conservatives. President Donald Trump nominated Justice Neil Gorsuch, who has helped cement the conservative bloc on the court.<doc-sep>The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that government workers can’t be forced to contribute to labor unions that represent them in collective bargaining, dealing a serious financial blow to organized labor. People gather at the Supreme Court awaiting a decision in an Illinois union dues case, Janus vs. AFSCME, in Washington, Monday, June 25, 2018. The Supreme Court says government workers can't be forced to contribute to labor unions that represent them in collective bargaining. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP) WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that government workers can’t be forced to contribute to labor unions that represent them in collective bargaining, dealing a serious financial blow to organized labor. The justices are scrapping a 41-year-old decision that had allowed states to require that public employees pay some fees to unions that represent them, even if the workers choose not to join. The 5-4 decision in Janus vs. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 31 fulfills a wish of conservatives to get rid of the fair-share fees that nonmembers pay to unions in roughly two dozen states. The court ruled that the laws violate the First Amendment by compelling workers to support unions they might disagree with. “States and public-sector unions may no longer extract agency fees from nonconsenting employees,” Justice Samuel Alito said in his majority opinion for the court’s five conservative justices. President Donald Trump weighed in minutes after the decision was handed down, while Alito still was reading a summary of his OVERSET FOLLOWS:majority opinion from the bench. “Big loss for the coffers of the Democrats!” Trump said in a tweet. In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote of the big impact of the decision. “There is no sugarcoating today’s opinion. The majority overthrows a decision entrenched in this Nation’s law — and its economic life — for over 40 years. As a result, it prevents the American people, acting through their state and local officials, from making important choices about workplace governance. And it does so by weaponizing the First Amendment, in a way that unleashes judges, now and in the future, to intervene in economic and regulatory policy.” The court’s three other liberal justices joined the dissent. Nevada impact Nevada is among more than 20 states that already have similar laws in place, and thus Wednesday’s decision will not directly affect state employees and unions. But the ruling will sap resources from national labor organizations that represent workers in Nevada, said Ruben Garcia, a labor law professor at UNLV. ‘’The national unions will be weakened at the bargaining table, and the engagement of those unions will also decline,’’ Garcia said. The decision could affect unions’ ability to fight on key issues such as increases in federal protections for minimum wage and overtime pay, the professor said. John Vellardita, executive director of Clark County Education Association, which represents 11,000 licensed professionals in the state, said the decision has more to do with political power in the country than labor law. ”The unions have been a lifeline to the Democratic Party, and they are going to have less funds,” he said, adding that Wednesday’s decision did not come as a surprise. “This is a wake-up call for organized labor that we have to change the way we do business. We need to show that we are good for society and encourage more people to become members,” Vellardita said. Roughly 164,000 Nevada workers are members of unions, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, including about 57,000 in the private-sector Culinary union. But 189,000 Nevada residents, or nearly 15 percent of the working population, are covered by union contracts, according to the bureau. SEIU Nevada Local 1107, which represents 19,000 employees in health care and the public sector, called on workers to stick together and hit the polls this election year. ”Members are mobilizing in 2018 to ensure that elected leaders are held accountable to creating good, union jobs and putting working Nevadans first,” Local 1107 Deputy Trustees Grace Vergara-Mactal and Brian Shepherd said in a statement. The Culinary union, which said more than 90 percent of workers voluntarily pay fees, also ripped Wednesday’s decision. “The targeted attacks on workers by right-wing billionaires who bankrolled #JanusvAFSCME and rig the system is shameful,” the union said in a tweet. Contact Todd Prince at 702-383-0386 or tprince@reviewjournal.com. Follow @toddprincetv on Twitter. The Associated Press contributed to this report.<doc-sep>
Richard Wolf and Gregory Korte USA TODAY WASHINGTON — A deeply divided Supreme Court dealt a major blow to the nation's public employee unions Wednesday that likely will result in a loss of money, members and political muscle. After three efforts in 2012, 2014 and 2016 fell short, the court's conservative majority ruled 5-4 that unions cannot collect fees from non-members to help defray the costs of collective bargaining. Those fees, permitted under a 1977 high court decision, violate the free speech rights of those who do not want to contribute, the court said. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the decision, announced on the final day of the court's term, which featured 13 similar 5-4 rulings with the same ideological lineup. In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan, joined by the court's three other liberals, accused the majority of "weaponizing the First Amendment." President Trump wasted no time claiming the decision would help Republicans at the polls. "Big loss for the coffers of the Democrats!" he tweeted. About 5 million workers could be affected by the decision overruling the court's 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education — those who pay dues or "fair-share" fees to unions in 22 states where public employees can be required to contribute. Workers in 28 states already cannot be forced to join or pay unions. "It is hard to estimate how many billions of dollars have been taken from nonmembers and transferred to public-sector unions in violation of the First Amendment," Alito wrote. "Those unconstitutional exactions cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely." From the bench, he noted that Illinois, whose Republican governor initiated the challenge, "has serious financial problems" that are exacerbated by costly union contracts. Gov. Bruce Rauner, who was at the court for the decision, has sought to renegotiate public employee contracts. Kagan's angry dissent accused the court of "weaponizing the First Amendment in a way that unleashes judges, now and in the future, to intervene in economic and regulatory policy." "Its decision will have large-scale consequences," Kagan said. "Public employee unions will lose a secure source of financial support. State and local governments that thought fair-share provisions furthered their interests will need to find new ways of managing their workforces." Gorsuch is key vote Justice Neil Gorsuch cast the deciding vote against what conservative opponents long have labeled a form of compelled speech. The money helps labor unions maintain political power in some of the nation's most populous states, including California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Gorsuch, who had remained silent during oral argument in February, was the key because the court had deadlocked in a similar case two years ago following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. The newest justice recently authored the court's 5-4 ruling that denied workers the right to join together in class action lawsuits rather than submit to employer-sponsored arbitration. The ruling completed a four-for-four sweep for the Trump administration in cases where the Justice Department switched sides from the positions taken during the Obama administration. "The favorable Supreme Court decisions in all four cases reflect that we took the proper course of action," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said. The 2016 case challenged a powerful teachers union in California; the new one targeted state employees in Illinois. But the threatened impact was the same: elimination of fees paid by police, firefighters, teachers and other government workers who don't join the unions that represent them. The landmark ruling overrules the court's own 41-year-old precedent, which said workers did not have to pay for unions' political activity but could be required to contribute to other costs of representation, such as wage and benefit negotiations and grievance procedures. The decision frees those non-members from the fees, but unions also are braced to lose dues-paying members now that they can save the full cost of membership, rather than the roughly 20% that pays for political activities. That could force unions to raise dues on those who remain. "It is shameful that the billionaire CEOs and corporate special interests behind this case have succeeded in manipulating the highest court in the land to do their bidding," leaders of the nation's four major public employee unions said in a statement. "This case was nothing more than a blatant political attack to further rig our economy and democracy against everyday Americans in favor of the wealthy and powerful."