Paying Politics: Court should rule public-sector workers do not have to support union politics

Even in such a politically divisive climate as we have now in this country, we as Americans are pretty much expected to be tolerant of opposing viewpoints.

But does that mean we have to pay for them? The answer depends on what you do and where you live.

Under federal law, labor unions engage in collective bargaining for all employees in a specific unionized workplace bargaining unit, not just their members. Forty years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that non-union workers could be assessed a fee to pay for that representation, but that the money could not be used for the union's political purposes.

So in 22 states, non-union employees must contribute their "fair share" to union coffers. About half of those workers are in the public sector, including teachers and other state employees, and that's where challenges to the law emerge. The argument is that a public sector union represent government workers must deal with government and the money these non-union workers contribute will be used in a de facto manner for political purposes. That forces those who do not support a union's political message to subsidize such speech.

In 2015 the high court heard a case from California teacher that seemed sure to sink the "fair share" system that already had been upheld by a lower court. But the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia meant the court divided 4-4, leaving the lower-court ruling-and the law-in place.

Now comes an Illinois case and a new member of the court. With President Donald Trump's appointee Justice Neil Gorsuch on board, it looks like these mandatory union deductions will soon go by the wayside-at least for public sector workers.

And in our view, it's none too soon.

Workers have a right to union representation and to support that union in its work. We don't think anyone should have to join or financially support a union. But certainly government workers who do not agree with a union's politics should not have to subsidize that speech.

The case should be heard early next year and a decision issued by June. We look forward to the court doing the right thing.

Upcoming Events