Down Might Be Worse Than Out

The Right's strategy for undermining unions may be a shade more subtle than we think.

The Supreme Court of the United States. Geoff Livingston / Flickr


On November 13, the US Supreme Court threw out a case that would have ended public-sector unions entirely. Unlike Janus v AFSCME — the other anti-union case that SCOTUS is hearing — Hill v. SEIU wasn’t just a challenge to fair-share fees but to the very right of a union to be the exclusive representative of public-sector employees.

“Exclusive representation” lies at the heart of American labor law. Following the proper procedural hurdles (usually a card drive and a secret-ballot election), a union is granted the sole right to represent workers in a particular worksite or to a particular employer. Without it, employers have no obligation to come to the table with unions; collective bargaining becomes nearly impossible.

Unions across the country are likely relieved to have dodged such a direct attack on their existence. But they shouldn’t get too comfortable. As Janus shows, the Right’s more subtle tactics could be their most effective.

This article is for subscribers only. Please login or subscribe to access our full archives and beautiful print and digital magazine starting at just $3 a month.