Depending upon your point of view, the recent United States Supreme Court decision regarding fair share dues to a union is either a great decision which upheld the First Amendment or a terrible blow to organized labor. Prior to this decision members in a collective bargaining unit did not have to pay dues for the political aspects of the union activities (although those activities were sometimes difficult to ferret out). The individual, however, did get a surcharge for the work done for their benefit as part of the collective bargaining agreement and also they received representation when a grievance is processed. (Disclosure: I was part of an amicus brief seeking that the court decision 40 years ago which allowed for this partial surcharge to be withheld).The present Supreme Court also went one step farther by having members "opt in" to the union or otherwise they are "opted out".

Unions have a dilemma. A local police and fire union, in apparent expectation of an adverse ruling, has legislation on the desk of Governor Gina Raimondo which would absolve them of the duty to represent those who are not members in the union in grievances. Right now, the law is tricky, since unions have the responsibility to represent less than full members. While individual unions may flirt with securing similar legislation exonerating them as well, the problem becomes that a teacher or government worker who hires a lawyer may impact the union if the lawyer creates "new law" as precedent because of unfamiliarity with the nuances of labor law, or who settles with disadvantageous terms.

One other problem is the “solidarity forever” mantra of unions may be on the endangered species list. I have already heard public employees saying that while they will be dues-paying members, they no longer see any need to be the “brother” of somebody not paying into the coffers. This attitude sets up a real tense working situation where paying members resent the “freeloaders”. It also harbors the further burnishing of the negative reputation of unions nowadays as a haven for bad workers because they are the majority of people who will belong because they will need representation for their grievances.

The decision also augers a reduction of power for Democrats who generally enjoy union support both in terms of campaign contributions and “workhorses” during the campaign. Rhode Island is one of the 22 states that will bear the brunt of the decision. Now that potential union members have to “opt in” the unions will be particularly hamstrung here in the November elections re: their support of candidates. What funds they will have to support campaign contributions or dues paying members who will assist with phone banks, mailing, etc.? Even if the impact financially won’t happen until 2019 the union honchos might cut back since they may need operating money and funds for their own salaries. Union bank accounts will also be siphoned off by the need for its own campaign to have members “opt in”.

Notwithstanding the fact that the union dominance in Rhode Island has caused angina among non-union taxpayers; there, nonetheless, should rightly be a concern about freeloaders. Time will tell the exact impact of the ruling on unions but it probably will not be a pretty picture.

Arlene Violet is an attorney and former Rhode Island Attorney General.