Why am I not surprised a presumably white male, who works in information technology for the New Mexico State government, has filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court in New Mexico saying he doesn't want to pay union dues? Libertarians looking at sociological demographics care to guess, though see here? "I am an individual! I will always be who I am no matter what my race, creed, or location where I was born--and no matter if I am poor, working class, middle class, or rich! I will always do better on my own, negotiating for my wages!" The guy is probably like "Tom" in "It's a Wonderful Life."
Anyway, the reporter at the ABQ Journal has written an excellent article about the lawsuit, has done a great job tracking down people to speak with, and does a good job explaining the basic legal issues. Great reporting.
For me, I am not happy about the 2018 US Supreme Court decision in the Janus case, which gave an individual government (not private) employee a "First Amendment" right to individually reject a collective bargaining agreement which the workers and management had voted on and agreed to enact. What makes me angry with the US Supreme Court is that, just a few years before, the US Supreme Court told individual female workers at Hobby Lobby that the for-profit company they work for had a "religion," and the corporation's "religious views" prevailed so as to deprive the female employees from receiving free contraception through the group insurance plan, as insurance companies had agreed to provide free contraception to all insureds under the ACA/Obamacare. As for those women employees, the Supreme Court's response was, "Hey, individual employees! If you don't like it, go work for someone else!" Yet, somehow in 2018, the majority of Supreme Court justices waxed philosophical about the government employee's individual right to overturn what workers and management decided in enacting a collective bargaining agreement. No "Go work for a non-union shop if you wish!" to Mr. Janus. I know, I know. If one looks at the history of the the judiciary and labor unions, one finds a fairly consistent bias against labor unions. And the US Supreme Court is largely not too happy about helping women as women, but they like their wives, sisters, daughters more than labor unions.
Anyway, the reason this class action lawsuit may succeed is perhaps two weeks to decide to join or reject a labor union's collective bargaining agreement will be deemed not long enough for a waiver of the right to reject the collective bargaining agreement, and maybe there can be no waiver at all with respect to the First Amendment. A reasonable argument for the unions and the state is that two weeks, meaning fourteen days, is more than sufficient time to decide whether to reject paying union dues, and frankly, the fellow can always wait till the collective bargaining agreement renegotiation rolls around. In other words, the argument for the unions and the state will be the burden on the First Amendment right is not unreasonable--you know, kind of like how the US Supreme Court thinks women should watch movies about heart-beating fetuses before they can go get an abortion, have to go through a waiting period, and then, can be told, "Sorry, too late, you should have acted earlier" if they wait "too long." However, since the Courts are as politicized as they ever have been, and with right wing bomb throwers in various judicial positions, including in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the US Supreme Court, we will see how this goes.
