What the Janus vs. AFSCME case means for teachers unions

Today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Janus v. AFSCME, which could overturn the 1977 Abood v. Detriot Board of Education precedent that has long held that agency fees are constitutional.

Mark Janus is cheered by supporters after speaking to them outside of the United States Supreme Court in Washington, U.S., February 26, 2018. REUTERS/Leah Millis

Agency fees are the portion of union dues that non-members have to pay public sector unions for representation in 21 states and DC. Unions call them “fair share” fees because they prevent teachers from “free riding,” or getting representation for nothing. Some state employees, such as plaintiff Mark Janus, argue mandatory agency fees violate their first amendment rights of speech and association.

Agency fees have bolstered union strength in states that allow them because they change teachers’ costs of union membership. For instance, California Teachers Association dues run about $1,000 a year, while agency fees are $650. The real cost for membership is $350 — the difference between union dues they can choose to pay and the agency fees they must pay. If agency fees are ruled unconstitutional, the true cost of union membership will jump to the full price of dues, $1,000 a year instead of $350.

For unions, agency fees are a lynchpin keeping membership high and dues coming in. Agency fees are allowed in 21 states and DC, which have 69% of active members but employ only 44% of the nation’s teachers. With no fees, teachers choose to pay full dues or nothing at all. So, as the true cost of joining doubles or triples in agency fee states, union membership will fall.

Since 2010, three states (Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin) that dropped agency fees — alongside other changes affecting union strength — had membership shrink between 17 and 59%. Those significant declines could be cushioned by a national NEA that could send grant money and support from headquarters in Washington. If agency fees are abolished across the country, there will be more states needing assistance while the national NEA is increasingly losing revenue, meaning support from headquarters will be limited. It is safe to assume similar patterns would occur across the nation’s second largest teachers union, the American Federation of Teachers.

A defeat in Janus will weaken America’s most powerful education interest groups — directly in states with agency fees, and indirectly from a dwindling state support from the national headquarters. The long-term question is: by how much?

See for yourself what might happen to teachers-union membership following the Janus ruling, depending on whether the trajectory follows the status quo, Indiana, Michigan, or Wisconsin.

You can read the full piece on the Janus case and the future of teachers unions here.