Union fees face likely court test

The unionization of state employees was authorized in June 2001 when Gov. Bob Holden signed an executive order that ended decades of refusal by Missouri's legislators to allow collective bargaining in state agencies.

A subsequent lawsuit upheld the governor's authority to permit union representation for employees of state departments under his control. But that same lawsuit said the issue of requiring state employees to pay fair-share fees for union representation even if they didn't join a union couldn't be decided until such fees were actually imposed.

The time has come.

Five-year union contracts were recently negotiated for employees in the Department of Mental Health, the Department of Corrections and the Missouri Veterans Commission. Beginning next week, any employee hired in those agencies will be required to agree to pay union dues or fair-share fees. Applicants who refuse such an agreement won't be allowed to accept jobs.

Union officials point to the benefits employees covered by a bargaining unit receive. It's only fair, they say, that every employee support the union, since every employee benefits from union representation.

But that ignores the fact that many workers, whatever their reasons, prefer not to be represented by a union and certainly don't think it's fair to be forced to pay union fees.

The unions recognized this resistance to forced union fees and agreed, during the negotiations that led to these first-ever union contracts for state employees, that current employees could join the union but wouldn't be forced to pay the fair-share fees if they didn't join. It's a good thing, because state workers who haven't received pay raises for several years would have seen their take-home pay further depleted by the new union fees.

It is highly likely that another lawsuit will be launched to test the idea of required fair-share fees. Neither the trial judge nor the appellate judges in the original case indicated whether the fees would pass muster, only that the issue couldn't be considered until the fees actually were in place.

Unions have long sought to represent state employees. In particular, they like the idea of requiring every employee in a covered department to pay for representation. But legislators -- including many Democrats -- have staunchly refused over the years to grant collective-bargaining rights to state workers in the many attempts to pass bills to allow it.

One thing that was always on the mind of legislators was that collective bargaining can lead to impasses that result in work stoppages or strikes -- even though state workers are prohibited from striking. State agencies, the legislators felt, should not be subject to that kind of disruption.

Holden, of course, ended those debates when he issued his executive order as a payback to unions that supported his campaign and also wiped out a sizable debt for his million-dollar-plus inaugural splash.

It will be up to a judge to decide whether the fair-share fees are legal.

Look for a lawsuit to be filed soon. And let's hope the judge has a sense of fairness to allow new state workers, like those already on the payroll, to decide whether or not they want union representation without being forced to pay if they don't.