The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the agency fees that public workers must pay to unions to fund collective bargaining negotiations. At the heart of the case, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, was a question of whether those agency fees violate public employees’ First Amendment rights to free speech.

The Daily Signal’s Melissa Quinn explains:

Public-sector workers can opt out of paying full union dues, but they must pay agency fees to fund collective bargaining negotiations. [Rebecca] Friedrichs and her fellow educators argue that collective bargaining is inherently political, since many of the positions unions take during negotiations with school administrators reflect their political choices.

“This case is about protecting the individual rights that each of us are guaranteed in the Constitution, and that includes the right to not fund political positions with which we disagree,” said Friedrichs, the California teacher who initiated the challenge.

“I just also believe that I deserve to have the freedom to choose, as do other public sector employees across the nation.”

The late Justice Antonin Scalia would likely have been the tie-breaker on the court, which would have ruled in favor of Friedrichs. Such a decision could have delivered a blow to public-sector unions, making union dues optional for all public employees.

What do you think of this ruling? Is this an obstruction of free speech?

Comments (500)

allan thomack - March 31, 2016

more corruption in the supreme courts

Judy3338 - April 1, 2016

This indeed was a blow to free speech. Oh, Judge Scalia, how we miss your integrity. RIP.

Linda May - April 1, 2016

It’s just more political nonsense that should not happen in the highest court. I’m afraid the America I hrew up in is forever gone. So sad!

Thomas Dean - April 1, 2016

Clearly, there should be no public unions in the first place. In the second place, the unions should not be able to compel non union members to pay them any money for the privilege of working.

Ed G. - April 1, 2016

Though I am a conservative, I tend not to agree with the critics of this decision. It is wrong for the unions to be using dues for their political activity, but is it unconstitutional? It is a practice that has been going on for 50 years in public-employee unions, and probably 100 years in other unions. This is not an application of free speech that was foreseen by the framers of the First Amendment. Congress has had ample opportunity to change the law to make what is wrong also unlawful. Regrettably, it has not done so. But wouldn’t it be judicial activism if the court, after all this time, decided that it was a violation of the First Amendment after all? If conservatives believe in original intent, it must stand in situations where it suits the wishes of the left as well as where it serves the interests of conservatives and the body politic.

Charles McCormick - April 1, 2016

Our highest court has failed to honor an individual citizen’s right to choose to disagree!

Kenneth J. Mortenson - April 1, 2016

Government employees should not be forced to pay union dues

Wanda Whitney - April 1, 2016

Yes, it is obstructing the fundamental rights of citizens to fund or otherwise support positions that that citizen believes correct. The unions are archaic now. If they wish to survive, they need to change their mobster mentality.

David Wire - April 1, 2016

This is an obstruction of free speech. It violates our individual rights under the constitution.

Beverly Buckner - April 1, 2016

I agree 100%

larry r jensen - April 1, 2016

yes, obstruction of free speech and obstruction of right to associate.

when we must pay for things we don’t want then there is no stopping what can be taken from us.

Marco Mazzone - April 1, 2016

Yes it is a violation of free speech

Anthony O’ - April 1, 2016

Of course it is…Look who voted for the decision. I’m just surprised it wasn’t 5-3 given Anthony Kennedy’s lunacy

THOMAS JACKSON - April 1, 2016


William Patterson - April 1, 2016

I think that no one should have to pay any dues to any union for the opportunity to work. Unions in my way thinking is the reason we have so many companies locating their plants or service offices overseas where they don’t have to bow down to union demands which is some cases are ridiculous.

Beverlee - April 1, 2016

Yes this ruling obstructs free speech

Janice Evans - April 1, 2016

Absolutely yes, this is an obstruction of fee speech and choice. Hopefully, this will return to the SCOUS for rehearing upon the filling of Scalia’s vacancy.

Steve - April 1, 2016

I am not sure if this is a “free speech” issue, rather it is an issue of mandatory compulsion. To be compelled to contribute to something in which you don’t believe is contrary to our basic freedoms. On the other hand, the union must have some funds with which to work. Making membership optional defeats the purpose of the union. This is why secret ballot for establishment of unions is so critical. And public unions, well, I question their very existence, especially in matters of collective bargaining, as they are organized against the taxpayer. The Court should have sided with the Ms. Friederichs, but for different reason than Free Speech.

Robert DiStefano - April 1, 2016

This is wrong! The First Amendment apparently protects nothing any longer. The unions have outlived their need and are doing more harm than good now. No one should be forced by the government to fund political activities that he/she opposes, No One!

Charles Greer - April 1, 2016

I believe that the GOVERNMENT of every
state should pass a law to make their state
a “RIGHT TO WORK” state just as some
states already are. Then a worker would
have an option.

richard - April 1, 2016

This demonstrates the corruptive power of union leaders who have no value of free speech. Our country has been ruined by such abusive power.

Martin Amore - April 1, 2016

I think that that is real unfair as a former
Union member and a shop Steward in the union I don’t
Think anyone schould be forced to pay for their right to work the unions are out of touch with what is right

Micheal Meyer - April 1, 2016

Corrupt courts, just another way to take are freedoms away.

Vishal M - April 1, 2016

This is outrageous, where the freedom. This is like Socialism.

J Sterbinasky - April 1, 2016

I always found the free speech argument suspect and truly question whether Justice Scalia would have supported that view. It’s a stretch of the idea of speech. But as I was once a payer of an agency fee I always hated that this group with a foreign agenda negotiated my salary and work conditions. It left me without recourse when the school district kept adding and adding work without me having the ability to go to anyone and say … You’ll pay for later when we renegotiate. It denied me my right to walk away from the job as a means to keep mgmt. honest – as I had done in the pvt. sector. I could walk but the union denied me any leverage!

Rip Blaisdell - April 1, 2016

How would this decision affect unions in a “Right To Work State?’

Wisesooth - April 1, 2016

The unionization of the public sector employees is a huge conflict of interest and should be unconstitutional in its entirety.

Robert McWain - April 1, 2016

So much for freedom.

Murray washam - April 1, 2016

This is consistent with the rest of
The destruction this administration has dealt to our country.

James - April 1, 2016

We are at a point where the evil force control most. The ill appoinments and questioned passing of Judge comings in play this is social America.

George Dunson - April 1, 2016

Just another example of “corruption ” in the Supreme court. This is why they should NOT be sappointed for life. !!

R Dean Amos - April 1, 2016

Is it called corruption? Or is it called lying?
Or is it called both? Congress and the Emperor decided Seniors did not need a COLAthis year. Then, they raised the cost of Medicare and the amount of deductibles of Rx medications. If I am lucky, I will be thru April with deductibles before I match my limit. Some Rx I have had to decline as they were $40,30, and 20 each. Is this what my employer and I paid 15% of my earnings into my acct that isn’t even there anymore. Where is it Congress?

George Connor - April 1, 2016

Most definitely an attack against free speech. The supreme court is now leaning to the liberal side.

D A LEASK - April 1, 2016


Scarlett Anderson - April 1, 2016

This is political obstruction of justice and completely wrong and corrupted.

W L Peters - April 1, 2016

This is a very poor decision. No one should have to pay dues to a union they don’t want to belong to.

Thomas Bunkley - April 1, 2016

Workers should never be forced to pay union dues. It is in fact a way to force us to support political issues in which we do not believe.

Marcia Harris - April 1, 2016

This IS an abridgement of free speech rights! If I were a union employee, I would try every way possible to get OUT of any union that requires me to pay into their “funds” that promote things I do not believe in. If that means moving to a union-free state, I would!

Chet Wanvig - April 1, 2016

If we need a reminder as to the impact of Scalia’s loss, here it is. The Senate must hold the line on filling his seat with a strict conservative Constitutionalist.

Janet Maggs - April 1, 2016

The people are silenced again.
We have no rights, the Constitution is being trashed & not one Republican or Democrat will listen to the people

Richard Rackers - April 1, 2016

The Suprem Court no longer accomplishes the intent of our founding fathers – it should be abolished

David B. - April 1, 2016

This decision is a bold example of why the Republican US Senate must block any Obama nominee to SCOTUS … can one imagine the damage to all of our inherent God-given rights a liberal court would deliver?

John Milller - April 1, 2016

This battle was fought in Wisconsin with the proper result. The unions are not a proper winner in this case.

DEVON N. DAHL - April 1, 2016

We should have won this battle–and would have done so had God not chosen to take Scalia home. A sad day for free speech and right of choice. Our “Beat Trump” contingent in the Republican Party are giving 3 or 4 Supreme Court nominations to Hillary Clinton–which will regularly produce results which will cause decades to overturn. They seem to want a “Progressive Socialist” and the blather of Karl Marx than a Donald Trump or Ted Cruz who have “taken their bait” and gotten completely “off track” on who must be beaten in November!!!

Anne McDade Barrett - April 1, 2016

From my point of view it is un-American and unconstitutional. And let me add that
we moved from California a couple of
years ago because we no longer wanted
to live in a state that was literally run by

Sandra McMurray - April 1, 2016

Yes I think the unions have been in Obama’s house since he was elected and telling him what to do like George Sorris etc. America is suppose to be the land of the free and the Brave … They. Court is under the people’s rule also is it not?
Why should they vote against the people instead of the selected case it is calling to represent ? What they are doing is making the law for all instead of the case brought before then . Obama said he would leave his health care and mArk for all to be punished forever and seems the Supreme Court is doing that for them . We are saying good by to the small enployers and businesses as well as groups the big companies and making them even greater. Seems we might get to a point where the Supreme Court is going to back them selfs right out of even being needed for the future Hense giving states the rule of law and anointing power if you know what I mean. Why will we need a Supreme Court in the end ? Hope they think s out that!

Ann - April 1, 2016

In my opinion, unions should not be allowed to use funds collected for one political party’s gain.

Ronnie Martin - April 1, 2016

U ions are now only useful to collect dues unfairly and saving jobs for sorry, lazy, useless employees. Worked for the phone company for 42 years. They are SCUM

Margaret A Medley - April 1, 2016

I believe that the decision on the union violates free speech, but also forces people to pay for opinions with which they disagree. Isn’t this also a violation of freedom of commerce?

Douglas Maxson - April 1, 2016

The Supreme court is not going by the constitution and if they refuse to do that all of our rights are in jeopardy.There seem to be a lot of people in this country that think we would be better off if we just let them decide how we will live. The rules they would set would of course not apply to them.

William Dufendach - April 1, 2016

Of course it is a violation of the constitution in which it prohibits Federal Government involvement into areas which are not specifically mentioned. All else is lef’t to the states.

Randolph Reinwald - April 1, 2016

How could this have happened! Can’t believe the workers aren’t rioting! The PEOPLE are so distracted. Young people believe all the liberal crap many Universities are spewing. Nothing being verified.

Ariel Krienke - April 1, 2016

We should have a choice whether or not to join a union. Its one of the reasons I decided not to become a teacher. I saw what it did to family members who are part of unions and I didn’t want to be forced to pay for something I totally disagree with. If we have no rights to our own beliefs, then America is truly gone. If the shoe was on the other foot, they would be screaming that they were forced but they feel they can force others. This is not right.

Rita Misero - April 1, 2016

This IS an abuse of FREE speech

Sandra Fox - April 1, 2016

This is an obstruction of free speech. If Unions can force members to support politician whose positions they disagree with they have list their right to free speech.

John Rees - April 1, 2016

Yes, I totally agree. We have appointed or should I say Obama has selected three far left liberal judges and we the people will have to live with for the next 20 plus years. I don’t think the founders meant it this way. I think we need to have term limits for judges just like we should have term limits for congressmen and senators of no more than 2 five year terms. The Founders did not intend for people to make a career out of being in congress and that’s what it’s become. The people are so tired of all of this and that’s why we see Donald doing so well. I’m for Ted Cruz and I hope he can win the nomination and restore to us a smaller government, more free speech, and a less corruption throughout our leaders. I think our only hope right now is for people to turn to Jesus and to accept him, depend upon him and love Him. If that should happen, only with much prayer, our nation will get back to what our forefathers meant for it to be. I am trusting in His Faithfulness to help us through this terrible period of time.

Phil Esposito - April 1, 2016

I don’t understand how 8 judges can be so far apart on issues when their only job is to interpret the law not make the law.

Barbara Ferraro - April 1, 2016

I agree entirely that it is obstruction of their rights to not support political opinions or support made by any union, all union dues and fees need to be completely optional.

Raymond Boudreaux - April 1, 2016

Yes, I believe this is an obstruction of free speech.

Butch - April 1, 2016

Union dues should not be forced on employees who opt out of the Union. Unions were necessary back in the days of the Sweat Shop but today they are just one of the machines of the Democratic Party. Dues that are collected line the pockets of the Union leaders and do little for their members.

Don Koeppen - April 1, 2016

This is an obstruction. You have the influence to keep the wavering senators in line for the next Supreme Court appointment.. Do so!!

Janetta Cox - April 1, 2016

This is a strike against free so speech. We as Americans have the right to chose what/where our money is to be used.

Lorraine Gloede - April 1, 2016

Yes. It’s another example of people being coerced to do something which takes away their right to make decisions about their lives. In this case, it’s about paying union dues; we have already seen the same thing with health care insurance.

Virginia Kesler - April 1, 2016

This is why it has been recommended that nothing should be brought before the court until after the new elections. This is also why no decision on a new judge should be made.

It’s too bad that this decision had to be made at this time.

Kathy Brunkhardt - April 1, 2016

SCOTUS has again forced citizens to purchase something they do not want. This time it cannot be called a “Tax”! It is plain and simpley a theft of hard earned money!!!

Mark Everly - April 1, 2016

On what planet is it reasonable for a person to be forced to pay an organization that promotes causes (and political parties, I might add) that they oppose for the purpose of negotiating for them against their will? The concept is dripping with systemic corruption and the SCOTUS decision reveals that this corruption has penetrated even our highest court. It is a sad day for our country as our freedom is increasingly crippled by all branches of the Federal Government.

Dr Jessie Hummel - April 1, 2016

Absolutely it’s a violation of our free speech. My father, rest his soul, was a union worker. He belonged to the Painters union. They struck, put my father out of work. He had a family of 6 to feed, so he scabbed work where ever he could find it. The union came to our house one evening and broke both my fathers arms. I remember that episode vividly. Something else happened in our neighborhood that I remember. The folks my father called friends stacked one complete wall of our house with cans of Spam. To this day there are 2 things I detest 1} Unions, I studied them quite well while in college and found them to be corrupt from the bottom to the top in most national unions and 2} Spam.

Roberta Pearson - April 1, 2016

The Post Office which I have been retired for 1&1/2 years has an opt out option, so I did because I didn’t agree with their politics. I think the teachers union should have the same opt. out option for their employees that we had.

Ross Williams - April 1, 2016

I believe this is one of the many constitutional rights that the liberal judges have taken away from us. We definitely
need to make sure Obama does not get a nomination appointed.

Jan Brock - April 1, 2016

Yes, this is an infringement on our freedom to choose, not be told what we can or can’t do!

Michael - April 1, 2016

#1 I am a union member, so I believe that if you want the benefits that the union negotiates then pay those who are negotiating YOUR wages and benefits. If you do not want representation then find a place that you can negotiate yourself. It is not right that Right to Work laws force Unions to represent those who do not pay fees or dues, you would not find a lawyer who would work free. This is a ploy to financially break the Unions and it is unethical and morally wrong.

Jimmy Mahuron - April 1, 2016

Mandating Union dues fees denies your freedom of choice.
And the collective bargaining
forces one to choose the Union side even if it is not right.
If you have an honest employer you don’t need a Union.

William Bucher - April 1, 2016

Oops , I guess I just don’t get it either way

Clay Vind - April 1, 2016

Forcing (by threat of livelihood) a person to pay for the promotion of anything against their deepest beliefs goes beyond freedom of speech to freedom of conscience. It’s an affront to the spirit_ the greatest dimension of man.

Daniel bolt - April 1, 2016

It does not look as though we the people have much of a chance with what is ahead of us in the future

Kelly Richardson - April 1, 2016

I agree that it is an violation of our constitutional rights. Logic doesn’t at all enter into this situation but the Supreme Court does….supremely disgusted with the politization of the Court.

Clinton - April 1, 2016

Definitely unconstitutional. Who is suprised. This garbage has been taught in schools and colleges fo decades. You reap what you sow. Public education is the problem, not the answer. NEA and the federal department of education are the result of this thinking also. IT WON’T CHANGE as long as they have control.

Barbara McNeely - April 1, 2016

It’s a typical ploy of the Left. They are so beholding to Unions that they will usurp the Constitution to keep the Unions in their pockets.

I belonged to a Union in Suffolk County, Long Island, NY and we were allowed to get whatever amount was used for Political Action monies back from our Union. It’s only fair.

MarilynLund - April 1, 2016

I agree! The Union members should have the same freedom that private sector has. I think Unions have outlived their original purpose and should be eliminated.
President Reagan had it right.

Ralph Loveridge - April 1, 2016

I think if Obama can appoint another liberal judge the Constitution will become irrelevant and put in the dust bin of history.
The liberals are doing everything in their power to stifle any speech not of their liking.

Don Kane Jr - April 1, 2016

Not really, people choose to take jobs that are union affiliated, so regardless of whether or not they join the union, the union still represents them in bargaining contracts, and support for legal matters.

Ralph - April 1, 2016

Hi Katie
I have retired but ran into problems with unions on federal contracts quite often. In virtually every case including one in AZ I found the union reps lied to potential employees relative to must join union to work to lying about wages. Broke union on one project because of their lying about right to work vs joining union. I was raised in coal mining area where unions did a lot of good. As I grew and got into workforce I found in most cases union leaders as a group could not be trusted and I came to dislike them a great deal.

Geraldine Moore - April 1, 2016

Yes, I believe the union does not have the right to take dues from the teacher.

H J Raehn - April 1, 2016

This decision makes it even more critical that the president and congress are presented with nominees that have a conservative bent, making the upcoming election of profound significance. I agree that Justice Scalia would have been the tie-breaker on the court in this decision and would have dealt a blow to public-sector unions. I am pleased to hear that Friedrichs will not let up!

Anthony Pantoja Sr - April 1, 2016

I was a member of a union for 30 years and proud of it. They help promote equal opportunity. Union’s helped me and I totally agree on there stance. It kept everyone on the same level.

John R - April 1, 2016


James Mould - April 1, 2016

Everybody knows that optional union dues would be the end of unions. Why don’t we just say so instead of of crying about union sues. I have worked for corporations who put millions of dollars into PACs that supported political candidates that I did not particularly like. Did any of the employees have a say to that? Are they not included in the push for free speech just like union members? I make judgments on individual unions not a blanket judgment just like I do for companies. I think there is enough sin to go around.

Patrick Stevenson - April 1, 2016

Follow the lead of Wisconsin; allow teachers to opt out of the Union…liberty is the essence of the American way.

Don Warmus - April 1, 2016

This is a blatant obstuction of free speech. So, What is new these days with the Supreme Court? What bothers me nearly as much is the whole thing is a money laundering scheme for the Democrats as the union dues and fees contribute greatly to their political efforts.

Allen Burt - April 1, 2016

This is another tragic decision!

Betty Steele - April 1, 2016

Freedom means that I as an individual and as an employee have the right to belong or not to a employee union. Unions should not coerce nor have part of my paycheck deducted from it to cover Union dues, that is my responsibility as a union or non union member. Unions should not have the right to tell me or coerce me into paying union dues, when I may not want to. The Union MUST respect my decision as a free individual.
The Supreme Court members took an oath to follow the Constitution and what it says, not appease a union, they are there to protect the individual rights according to the Constitution. Anything else is a breach of trust and contract to the Constitution and to the people.

Todd Paulus - April 1, 2016

It’s clearly an abomination of our Constitution, and the Court is clearly ignoring same. We will need to take this issue, again, to the Court after we again have 9 Justices.

Janelle M. Nowell - April 1, 2016

I do not want any American to be required to join a union to work at a job. If an American joins a union by choice and is not required to join to get and keep a job, I think the union can require an administrative fee for recordkeeping and newsletters to members of the union.

Robert lawson - April 1, 2016

Especially in Education where the union once represented academic principle but came to represent only bureaucratic workers in a common defeat of learning as part of their attempt to eliminate western civilization.

Charles Spell - April 1, 2016

I don’t think the court’s position was right. People should not have to support viewpoints they don’t agree with.

Ken Cammenga - April 1, 2016

Close split decisions by the Supreme Court tell me that some of the justices don’t care what the Constitution says. We rarely see a unanimous decision or an 8-1 or 7-2. This tells me that the Supreme Court is a political body. Very sad. Our Founders made the appointment a life-time one just to allow the justices to follow the law and not their political leanings.

Richard L Ternes - April 1, 2016

Absolutely it is against free speech. Forcing someone to pay a fee is illogical.

Bruce Kincaid - April 1, 2016

The current supreme court continually spits on the Constitution, their only reason for existence. The Constitution is NOT a work-in-progress, and the only thing that is open for analysis, is whether-or-not a case or a law is constitutional. The Constitution, to me, and to all of the people I know means what it says, literally. What is the matter with these alleged jurists. There is no one currently living, that begins to approach the intelligence, insight, and understanding of dictatorship and freedom of as our forebears. Thanks

Ralph Morrison - April 1, 2016

My wife pays into CTA and as concervative we generally oppose everything they stand for. I understand and acknowledge that there is some benefit to bargain g for wages and benefits, but any funds used for political purposes the CTA should not be allowed to use, nor should we pay into such services. Their political will opposes every political belief which we believe right.

JoAnne Duke - April 1, 2016

I had already read about this. I belong to AAUGC. WE really thought we would win this one before Scalia died.

John Friedrich - April 1, 2016


Betty R in MN - April 1, 2016

I’m not sure. But if they have the right to opt out of union dues, it should include all union dues not just part of them.

Lew Chatham - April 1, 2016

Another blow to our individual freedom. Another reason not to let OBama select the next Justice.

Thomas H Smallwood Sr - April 1, 2016

I believe that the justices currently serving on the Supreme Court need to take a course covering the Constitution of the United States. They no longer seem to know what their function is. Justice Roberts believes he should and has the authority to write laws where none exist. Their other routine actions have negated the freedom of religion enshrined in the 1st amendment. This decision has the effect of negating the freedom of speech also included in the 1st amendment. What is next?

Bonnie Collins - April 1, 2016

That is so wrong. The Supreme Court is no longer Supreme it is only political and should be abolished. We need a group that changes and is not corrupted.

whitman Ball - April 1, 2016

Absolutely, I have thought it was wrong for years.

Sheila - April 1, 2016

Unions no longer have a place in the work place, they are money grabbing political machines that put Union above individuals. At one time factory workers, construction workers needed a union to stand up for rights and needs of the workers. This day and time unions are no longer needed. They have become a big lobbying machine and most times go against what members want.

Dick Gutru - April 1, 2016

If Unions are not political then why do they contribute so much money to Politicians??
I’ve been around almost 80 years, had to join a union to get a job on several occasions and have yet to learn the reason why they exist! I could go on but enough said.

June Lange - April 1, 2016

We are losing more and more freedoms in all the realms daily. It appears our personal opinions are being suppressed in all realms of life. This is tyrannical rule and not allowed to flourish.

Dwayne - April 1, 2016

A taste of what we’ll get a BUNCH of if another God hating liberal criminal gets appointed.

keith jones - April 1, 2016

absolutely against free speech Unions are out of hand

Raymond A. Edwards - April 1, 2016

This article is misleading, in that, If Union member so chooses the portion of his/her dues used for Politicks may be given to a charity. And over the years since collective bargaining began here, I have been here all those years, I have yet to hear of any teacher refusing to take any of the raises in pay or the benefits.

Fran Ruebel - April 1, 2016

Absolutely. The Republican Party better get their act together. I am fed up. I’m a lifelong Republican ( l’m 74) and am sick and tired of the in fighting. We have to unite as a team and support one of the candidates we have, sad as they are.

Lee Anders - April 1, 2016

Interesting that the Supremes have no problem extending free speech to others. Seems like a good motivation to organize for a right to work state.

Albert Smith - April 1, 2016

Terrible loss. It will foster conspiracy theories over the death of Justice Scalia and the leftist unions and their connections with the mob.

Christine Paul - April 1, 2016

Of course, it is an obstruction to free speech as the court has ruled in favor forcing workers to pay for political alliances and IF THEY WANT A JOB.
Similarly,, in my view, people also pay a tax to NOT have health insurance
Our government is collecting taxes not only for “services” but for NO services.

Gerald A. Pilley - April 1, 2016

I was pressured by the Ironworker’s union in Norfolk, Va., to support Obama because our union had endorsed him, and as a member I was obligated. I refused and made my position clear. As a result, I was blackballed and had to go to Texas, where my sentiments were shared. Union’s today are no more than any other special interest group that has a political and a financial interest in the party they endorse and the candidate they pander to.

Mike Keller - April 1, 2016

This is definitely a misinterpretation of the first amendment of the Constitution . Or more so a this respect to the constitution to fill their ideology agenda

Lorraine Razbornik - April 1, 2016

I believe a person should have the option to opt out, if they so choose! The unions should have no right to take money from those to put in their own pockets!’no one should violate the opt out position on either side. Where is this called freedom. This government should never go against any persons right to choose. What God Almighty said to me, I will do and what the establishment tries to force me to comply, I just won’t! Amen

Retta - April 1, 2016

Yes, it is an obstruction of free speech.
Nobody should be forced to pay money to support political issues they do not believe in.

Jeanie Kelly - April 1, 2016

Which justices voted for this

robert fantelli - April 1, 2016

Yes. Unions had serve their purpose but had overreached their authority all too often and this is one case (California) that is flagrantly wrong. My daughter was in a teachers union in MA and all they did was collect dues period.

Gussie Bartell - April 1, 2016

It stinks!!!

Beverly Isbell - April 1, 2016

This is not a constitutional decision that the founding fathers would have done!
The unions are too strong and need to be
controlled with letting have less power!

Bill Warren - April 1, 2016

I think clearly a violation of free speech and other liberty infringements. No one should be forced to join or support a union of any kind if they personally don’t want to.

Dean Brewer - April 1, 2016

Yes, it is an obstruction of free speech and should not be allowed to stand.

Robert S. Allen - April 1, 2016

Yes. It is.

Patsy - April 1, 2016

It is sad to see where our country has come too. I have never believed that the unions have worked for the average worker for along time. Now they are for the big guys that head up the unions and they have become so political that they do not serve the worker. A person should not be punished for not wanting to belong to a union. I think this un-American. I think the unions should in most cases be done away with. They may have serve a purpose in the past but they do not now in most cases. The politicians love the unions because if they can get the big bosses to back them then they can get big donations from the unions for their campaigns.

Liz Lauder - April 1, 2016

Yes, absolutely!

John Henderson - April 1, 2016

I believe this goes way beyond “free speech”. First, I believe in “Right to Work”. I don’t believe that anyone should be forced to join a union. Second, unions have become powerful “political” organizations. I would suggest that maybe they, the “unions” should not be allowed to contribute to political activities.

karl corser - April 1, 2016

Freedom of Speech is the rule that all should apply and live by.

ALAN AHLGRIMM - April 1, 2016

we don’t need the usda’s rural housing service

Leslie Young - April 1, 2016

Yes, it is an obstruction to our guaranteed free speech.

Ed Gates - April 1, 2016

This certainly does not protect the individuals right to free speech.

Richard Randall - April 1, 2016

Where is Scott Walker? We need him for this, also.

Judy Pepper - April 1, 2016

This ruling makes one wonder who is left on the side of liberty and justice for all.
Pray the current administration is not successful in nominated a replacement for Justice Scalia. His unexpected death was a shock and seems to have opened the door for more liberal court rulings.

James Coffman - April 1, 2016

This is just another step on the pathway to a totalitarian government. The Supreme Court has been loaded with liberal judges, and the process is ongoing by the current administration. They are slowly fulfilling the prophecy of Nikita Kruschev. We are becoming a Socialist (Communist) nation.

Michael Guin - April 1, 2016

Obviously the work of Liberals who feel their opinions are more correct than the work of the “old dead, white men” who composed the constitution. Only God can help us now!

John - April 1, 2016

This issue is no different than any private sector job. When we take a job with a company, it is accompanied by terms and conditions of employment. If one does not agree with those T’s & C’s, they are free to look somewhere else or get the T’s & C’s waived by her employer. They call that the “free labor Market”. One does not get what they deserve. One gets what they negotiate.

I suggest Ms. Friedrichs search for employment in a a private school.

A non-politicized SCOTUS would tell her the issue is not about her free speech. It’s about her free choice.

Julia Jones Thatcher - April 1, 2016

The Supreme Court Justices will continue to disregard the Constitution until a Conservative Judge is selected as a replacement for Scalia. Why they think they have a right to completely disregard the Constitution is something I simply do not understand. The Supreme Court’s duty is to agree with what the Constitution has to say about the issue before them and state it as such. Their responsibility is NOT to make new laws but only to affirm that the Constitution is being upheld in all situations that come before them.

Cheryl K. Rayer - April 1, 2016

Absolutely against our Freedom of Speech!!!! The government is taking away more and more of our birthright freedoms and we must revolt against this or we will be taken over completely by government!!!! Mark my words—there is a revolution brewing and it will not be long before occurs. Politicians have ridden the taxpayers into the ground and we will not continue to cower to these idiots!!!!!

Feturah Miller - April 1, 2016

The Supreme Court has no power to rule contrary to the Constitution. Any ruling that forces any individual to pay dues to something that that person disagrees with is unconstitutional.

Ray rozier - April 1, 2016

It is inane rival to make someone join any Union he or she doesn’t want to!!!

Coreen Glen - April 1, 2016

I agree that it is an obstruction to free speech. As a former teacher who resented having to pay union dues to a group that held opposing values from me, I am all for the plaintiff and her argument.

Susan McKinnon - April 1, 2016

I think Friedriechs had a valid argument with her view that Unions use the dues to fund issues that many of us don’t like or agree with. It’s a forced dues and I felt the same opposition when I paid them when I was a teacher. The Teachers’ Unions do many worthy things in support of the teachers, but they are have different agendas using the funds for their own
Union benefits.

PAUL SLONE - April 1, 2016

hell yes it is the unions can say and do what they what and the people cnnt say are do anything about it this wrong

Gretchen Kaser - April 1, 2016

The Supreme Court went the wrong way AGAIN. Won’t be long before we can’t express our own opinions!

Ronald L Stokes - April 1, 2016

Yes it is like imposing a tax like Obama Care on Americans without choice of keeping what they had. It imposes the will of a group against freedom to work without being taxed by the right to work instead of paying a fee (tax) to work.

H Terry Cates - April 1, 2016

The libs win again, they win more than the conservatives and the future does not look good, pray.

Shirlene Allen - April 1, 2016

I worked in Santa Barbara County for 17 years and the SEIU was the union for the county. Although my dues were reduced because I did not choose to belong to the union but the dues we not that reduced. Using union dues for political purposes instead of using for the employees they represent is wrong. Most of the platform they were supporting I disagreed with. Another practice I disagree with was blocking us out of the meetings because we did not pay full dues. They also did not allow us to vote and that is alright but to be blocked from the meetings? Come on!

Robert Patterson - April 1, 2016


Jeffrey Vanden Busch - April 1, 2016

YES!!! Indeed it IS obstructive to freedom of speech let alone being forced to pay Union dues that first and foremost go directly into the coffers of a political party (primarily Democrat) whether the member agrees or disagrees. I was once there and thanks to Gov. Scott Walker in 2011 when I was able to end my affiliation. I found out who my real coworker friends really were! I was blown away by the unbelievable treatment I received from too many! Truly sad after working there 37 years!

Don Olsen - April 1, 2016

Just another gift to the Unions and their corrupt leaders.

Mel Hartley - April 1, 2016

Yes it is! I have been in and out of unions and I prefer out. They are all corrupt, as is the Supreme Court in my opinion. Term limits for Supreme Court justices would be great.

Tom Crist - April 1, 2016

This is ABSOLUTELY obstruction of free speech. As Rush Limbaugh says, “Union dues are simply a money-laundering scheme for the Democrat party”. Practically all the money, and practically all the dues themselves, minus what the bosses skim, goes to the Democrats. What’s so hard to understand?

Linda G. White - April 1, 2016

I believe this is an obstruction of free speech and First Amendment Rights.
I had the same scenario when I was forced to be in a union when I was working. I objected then and now. People should have the right not to have their money skimmed off the top to support union issues they disagree with.

Philip R Warnke - April 1, 2016

Some of these Justices in black robes are political only and not looking out for liberty.

Fred Yarbrough - April 1, 2016

Any time a person is required by law to support something they donor believe in is another against constitutional freedom. Sort of like obamacare.

Jackie French - April 1, 2016

This is just another one of Obama’s fundamentally transforming America. He has destroyed almost all of our constitutional rights. I don’t hold out much hope for this country anymore. It is not even our country anymore. We the people have no say in anything anymore. Now the RNC is trying to take our candidate away from us and destroy our country even more. However they will not get away with it because the pitch forks will come out if they try what Mitt Ramney is trying to do. They will NOT get away with it Donald Trump is the one that can save our country from any further destruction and bring it back the way it used to be.’

Ron Bischoff - April 1, 2016

Another blow to the constitution—allowing the lower court ruling to stand means union members CONTINUE to lose their political free speech.

Lewis Bennett - April 1, 2016

Don’t know about free speech, but it certainly is another example of overweening govt. power interference in our freedoms in general.

Christine Meade - April 1, 2016

It should be against the law for Unions to use monies to promote political agendas of any kind.Workers have protections and recourses. I feel Unions do more for themselves than they do for the workplace employees. Free work states would hurt Unions but it would improve the economy and not tread on freedoms.

Phillip Coffman - April 1, 2016

I can’t believe that our country and SCOTUS are so closely divided, yet so far apart, on such important matters as this last one. Many decisions and beliefs are slipping away from what our Constitution stands for. The concept of “liberty and justice for all” is rapidly moving left. You would think more of our judges would hold on to our fundamental principles. We must wait for a conservative president to appoint the ninth member of the court. The tie votes, which send each case back to a lower court ruling could be either, in favor or against, what we believe is right. At least, these tie votes are not “no” votes pre se. Hopefully some cases will be revisited, again, with a conservative majority!

Chris Cecil - April 1, 2016

As a public school high school teacher, I am dismayed by the court’s ruling. The schools are a mess at least in part because they are now being managed by politicians rather than educators. The culture is broken, and families are going the way of the do-do bird. Kids from single-parent homes and politicians are running the schools while teachers are merely being used by politicians to do their bidding. Friedrichs vs.CTA is “just another brick in the wall.”

M with earle - April 1, 2016


Stan - April 1, 2016

Yes.This is paving the road to socialsm. It is known that the unions are controlled by the left wing of the Democratic Party since the unions are almost automatically send the money to the “party” like in the Soviet union..Hopefully Trump will reverse that.

Ted Beatty - April 1, 2016

Any concession to union activity and union dues is an affront to free speech. No one should ever have to join a union or pay union dues to gain or maintain employment.

Dean G. Newman - April 1, 2016

To me this ruling is a simple matter of the Court caving in to Big Labor pressure. Public unions should have never been allowed. It is not possible to have a real contract negotiation when the management side has no skin in the game. They do not have to pay the bill.

Robbie Clark - April 1, 2016

The Supreme Court’s split decision on this case allowed for the obstruction of free speech. Justice Scalia’s knowledge and desire for the rule of law is absent and has left the Court open for decisions which do not follow the Constitution.

Gayle Robertson - April 1, 2016

This is utterly outrageous! It’s just not right, and YES it violates individual rights!

Wes Wieland - April 1, 2016

I think that any time there is an organization that take any political stand, some in that organization end up supporting something they don’t like. Unions have been weakened to the point of have no impact already. If this continues, who speaks for the American Worker? Answer me that.

So here is my suggested solution for those who feel their first amendment rights are being abused by unions: Simply request that each union set up a trust fund for political activity. Those that wish no to contribute can opt out of having their money go to that trust fund.

Unions still get to negotiate for workers, seeing that no one else is willing to, and those that want to use their money for other purposes can do so. What is the problem?

Sidney Ray Styles - April 1, 2016

Action is unconstutional. We must change the makeup of supreme court. Elect Ted Cruz.

Mary Alice Cloukey - April 1, 2016

This is a violation of free speech

Waleda Mia Wallgren - April 1, 2016

I believe we have a right to not support political positions we disagree with..

Lamar Cornwell - April 1, 2016

Certainly it is obstruction of free speech. The union is a political entity and will not consider the positions of the individual public employees. Decades of the ‘same old, same old’.

Edward A. Konderla - April 1, 2016

this is purely a violation of our free speech and should be overturned as soon as we have honest judges on the court

Walter C. Givens - April 1, 2016

I totally agree on almost all of “your” positions! I am an intelligent, Air Force Academy 1st Class (1959) graduate, post graduate , retired military officer, and 35 year real estate broker -and small financial supporter of Heritage. However, I wish you would quit stuffing down our throats that “we” (you) are CONSERVATIVE. I don’t need to hide behind a name to believe, act and/or voice my local, national or international views. Let me call myself (and others like me) intelligent individuals (not “persons”) who can, or can not, study, read, see, or otherwise know what is going on here and “there” – WITHOUT ANY BIAS – such as “conservative”. Besides that, you alienate those folk that call themselves “democratic” (that’s me and all who cherish the foundation of our country). Why don’t you just call the “trash” of today what it is – because that’s what is being fed to our “babies” of today. Walt Givens – and I’m proud of my “heritage” – from Depression on a SW Virginia (mountainous) farm, raised by college graduate parents (with grandparents, aunts and uncles wonderful limited influence).
P.S. Yes, I am becoming more depressed (each day) about our accelerated country’s (and the world’s) dive into “childish, totally selfish” oblivion. Please try to address me as a Citizen of Our Country – not as one of your “political action group”. Yuck!

George Pratt - April 1, 2016

Of course it is, why should anyone be coerced by a standing body to which they do not belong, be required to fund such a body. What if it is a position that one cannot agree with.

Ken Simon - April 1, 2016

I used to think this kind of action was lack of intelligence – but now believe it’s a willingness to support their positions regardless of what’s correct/legal/just. We must work to hold them accountable !!
Ken Simon

Paul N Kroeger - April 1, 2016

Yes, it seems to be. It sounds like this is some kind of insurance policy. Someone there should take the Heritage Society’s Constitution 101 course and then talk about the issue again.

Suzanna Meiahn - April 1, 2016

It is an awful ruling for our freedom of speech!

Shirley Adams - April 1, 2016

yes, I believe this is an obstruction of free speech. This is a perfect example of why we cannot afford another of Obama’s liberal appointments. We must have a judge appointed who is going to abide by the constitution and protect our freedom as Justice Scalia did.

Woody Hodgkins - April 1, 2016

This is a travesty! The unions contribute to the politicians PAC and then get their way on all wage matters in return. This ends up with the employer being compensated by the employed! And using the taxpayer’s dollars to feather the nests.

Richard Kitch - April 1, 2016

This is another case of unions pushing their main objective to keep their union strong, inspite of the members, and to push its people in supporting the left

Judith La Montagne - April 1, 2016

I don’t know that I would call this ruling an obstruction of free speech. This term is used too often for occurrences that have nothing to do witih “speech,” per se. However, it is a vital blow to freedom to control one’s own money and to be politically independent.

Lyman Youngberg - April 1, 2016

Absolutely terrible !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Arnold Hundert - April 1, 2016

I definitely do think that this decision is an infringement on free speech. Forcing an individual to pay to have someone (in this case a union) promote political views that the individual may disagree with is, at the very least, morally wrong and should be legally wrong as well. From what I know of our founding fathers intentions when forming the constitution, well let’s just say that they are most certainly “turning over in their graves” in displeasure.

Dianna and Donald Morrow - April 1, 2016

Definitely a blow for the rights and freedoms of many Americans. Hope something can be done.

Mitchi Stover-Parent - April 1, 2016

I believe employees should have the right to join any Union they wish and pay the appropriate dues. It is unfair that people that don’t agree with the union or political influence the union is buying have to pay into it. Another reason it’s fair is because some employees don’t agree with the union agenda but they have no one to speak on their behalf if it is in conflict with the union agenda. Definitely takes away the employees right to free speech (plus they are helping support the union agenda monetarily). Something needs to be done about this. I also think we need to have term limits for Supreme Court Justices. It’s ridiculous for people as young as some of our judges and they have a lifetime job.

Stephan Hanford - April 1, 2016

It’s to bad that the 4 liberals don’t have the brains to remember that a similar case told the unions NO. Why can’t they this obvious no brainer and reinforce that standing decision!

Mitchell Langbert - April 1, 2016

I wrote the above piece in Frontpagemag almost two years ago. Sadly, Justice Scalia’s death has impeded progress. The faculty union at the City University of New York, for instance, funnels tax-subsidized salaries into the coffers of candidates endorsed by the Working Families Party. It does so without regard for whether the candidates support workplace gains for the university’s faculty; the purposes are purely political in the large sense.It’s not surprising that the Democrats resist revising the 1977 Abood decision, which facilitates the unions’ deceptively diverting dues money to purely political causes and claiming that they are being used for bargaining-related purposes. They do this by assigning full-time assistants to the candidates, as the CUNY union did with de Blasio, then charging the costs to administration. This kind of deception has yet to be investigated, and the Democrats are eager to avoid any investigation.

Gilbert Doan - April 1, 2016

Well, of course!

But its illogic is downright bizarre!

Johnny Vargas - April 1, 2016

America is on the verge of Destruction and Disaster by the Corrupt Marxist Political Machine that is the B H Obama Administration!

Brenda Shepherd - April 1, 2016

This is a violation of Free Speech by requiring individuals to participate/fund issues/voting in which they disagree/is against their beliefs.

Allen Arnold - April 1, 2016

I don’t understand why public sector unions are even allowed to exist in the first place. Public employees work for the public and are paid by the public, so when they strike this is like a subset of the public striking against the public at large. Seems like a conflict of interest to me.

Michael Baker - April 1, 2016

I for one want term limits placed on Supreme Court Justices. I am not confident that it would fix the problem we have now. Presidents have control of loading this court with the ones who ligislate their way. I can’t see how this serves the people. I am opposed to unions being able to make anyone pay dues for anything against their will or beliefs. They should be able to opt out. This clearly violates their rights. Amendment one, Bill of Rights

Allen Arnold - April 1, 2016

I don’t understand why public sector unions are even allowed to exist in the first place. Public employees work for the public and are paid by the public, so when they strike this is like a subset of the public striking against the public at large. Seems like a conflict of interest to me.

Myrtle C Delaney-Kipfer - April 1, 2016

Unions have outlived their good works. They lifted workers from the snake pits, now they just agitate the bosses they work for. I have never agreed with the political side of the unions. I don’t like that my dues had to go to a candidate that I didn’t agree with. They need to have their power adjusted in today’s world. Right now their main work is getting a democrat elected and forcing businesses out of business. Management has rights, too.

Cherie - April 1, 2016

Absolutely outrageous!

Virginia Wallace - April 1, 2016

A terrible set back. I hear they are sending it back again. Hopefully, if it is heard again, there will be a conservative judge in place to break the tie.. To me, the most important thing in the upcoming election results is the filling of the vacant supreme court seat.

Susan - April 1, 2016

I worked for the federal government. We were never forced to join the union, nor pay dues for their causes. I think it should be that way for ALL Americans. The unions now have permission to take everybody’s money and use it for their own political agenda. This is WRONG!

Arnoldo R Cruz - April 1, 2016

Absolutely. Free speech in this case means the freedom to not be compelled to support financially the views of union leaders whatever they are. Each person has a constitutional right to participate or abstain from supporting a cause, particularly when that support is going to be used as an an anonymous mass pressure and a type of black mail to obtain concessions not individually earned.

Carole - April 1, 2016

As a former UAW member, I had no idea of what the unions were doing with the money they collected. When I found out most of it went to democrats I was enraged. I no longer am on the side of the unions because I don’t want my money going to people who don’t share my values. The USSC has no right to make laws. Congress does.

Billy Mullins - April 1, 2016

I was in a private sector union for 25 years. I am a conservative and I freely spoke my mind and my conservatism was well known among my fellow members. I still had to pay union dues to work out of my union hall. I did not like the position that the union leaders pushed onto the membership so I voted my conscience and encouraged others to do the same.I am retired now and I have a very good pension that was funded through the union members not the companies.

Andrey Kalashnik - April 1, 2016

Sad sad sad

Janis E Tobin - April 1, 2016

There should be no public unions. No one should be forced to pay dues or even join a union. This is like pimping out women who are forced to pay their ‘sugar daddy’ money. And this money is raised from being forced to have sex against their will. Unions are like pimps and no one has a say in where their hard earned money goes.

Phillip D. Schleppy - April 1, 2016

The lib’s don’t care about freedom or what’s
right, just power and control.

Andrew Nauta - April 1, 2016

any union is formulated as a private entity subject to law. If law allows the collection of dues for nefarious purposes, no court can and should overturn this. It remains up to the governing bodies to change this law in order for these nefarious purposes to cease.

dick bedard - April 1, 2016

absolutly against the constitution==the loaded scotus is obamas dream team

Richard Schmidt - April 1, 2016

As a now retired teacher from Wisconsin, I have long hated paying union dues to the obviously progressive and democratic teachers union. Many views of the union were in conflict with my Christian and Biblical views, and really, would have been objectionable to the views of our founding fathers.

Al Bedinger - April 1, 2016

Clearly it is a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Jean Young - April 1, 2016

When I was a public school teacher in West St. Paul, MN, I was not required to join the union. I had to pay my fair share for liability insurance.

Ken Baer - April 1, 2016

This is taking away free speech. American workers, the American taxpayer has been used by Unions. Congress is at fault. The Supreme Court will not uphold the Constitution because we have Fascist and Communist members on the Court. Congressional GOP Leadership, if you can call it that, McConnell and Ryan should address Unions and American workers and restore free speech and protect workers from Unions and Union violence; however, McConnell and Ryan are weak heads of their party and will not act to protect Americans. We clearly need effective GOP Leadership. We are not getting it. They should be replaced. Since we believe in the Rule of Law and upholding the US Constitution, Kagan and Sotomayor should be impeached from the high court. The Bill of Rights and Constitution must be upheld.

Craig Rollo - April 1, 2016

Of course this is a blow for freedom of association. To be forced to fund something with which you disagree is a slap in the face to anyone who values the rights, given by God, and supposedly protected by the First Amendment. Our Supreme Court has become the Supreme defender of Progressivism. They have forgotten the constitution, voting their ideology instead. Liberalism/Progressivism, are the primary reason for the loss of freedom in this once great country. They always seem to think they know better than us, what is best for us. Everything from union dues to special light bulbs we must buy, or insurance we must have.

Stephen - April 1, 2016

In general I think the Supreme Court has lost its way. Unlike justice Scalia (may he rest in peace) many of his fellow jurists appear to be somewhat out of touch with their own job description. The ” Living Document” philosophy of Constitutional interpretations is nothing but “MANURE” It is the fertilizer of civil unrest and war. It denies the power of the Rule of Law. It subjugates Representative government, States rights, morality, culture and common sense to the barnyard of arrogantly spread political poop.
If the Constitution could of been written we the same economy as the Ten Commandments perhaps it could like the Commandments been engraved in stone. It would of served the framers well if it had been because the framers by all intent did not mean the liberties and freedoms it was designed to protect to be erased without much effort and consideration certainly it did not intend to delegate 9 jurists to arbitrate every social contract that obtained majority passage in the legislature and overrule centuries of cultural consensus on matters such as marriage. WE the PEOPLE need to repent because our government is unashamedly reflecting our own social pathologies and it is doubtful that without divine intervention we will find our way back to moral civilized nation operating under the rule of law.

Marie Stein - April 1, 2016

When the unions speak contrary to the position of those they represent, that constitutes repression of free speech.Therefore union dues should not be mandatory.

Joe Lee - April 1, 2016

It makes me sick.

Michael nesbit - April 1, 2016

It is. Nothing more need be said.

Joan - April 1, 2016

I on’t see where forcing people to pay union dues has anything to do with free speech. The unions are like a great protection racket

John Bergin - April 1, 2016

Justices who do not follow constitution should be removed, Impeached. Article 3 of the constitution allows for same. Congress stands idly by and allows flagrant violation of the constitution as well as unethical behavior.

John Urban - April 1, 2016

As a former public school educator I know first hand the humiliation of HAVING to pay union dues only to have a goodly portion of my payment going to support political candidates who held positions I was not in favor of. I can support my union negotiating on my behalf for salary, benefits and working conditions but the union became more and more a political action committee.

Elie - April 1, 2016


Reginald Dickson - April 1, 2016

God took this good man too early. How could this have been allowed to go forward in this situation?

Doug Stearns - April 1, 2016

Absolutely. Eliminates the basic American freedom of choice to not associate.

Marilyn Buenning - April 1, 2016

Yes, I believe the recent Supreme Court ruling infringes on out individual rights. I’m very concerned what is happening in our country. We have strayed from our founding constitution rights.

Carolyn H. McLemore - April 1, 2016

I do indeed Bellevue that this decision is but one more chip off of the Constitution.
By denying these teachers the right to choose whether or not to fund the negotiations portion of union agreements, the Supreme Court has infringed on the 1st Amendment of freedom of association, freedom of speech and in some cases,freedom of choice of whether their special union fees should go to a candidate not of their choosing.

Pete Jerabek - April 1, 2016

“If an individual owns his own labor and has a further right to enter into contracts with any willing buyer of that labor on terms that are mutually acceptable, then exclusive representation overrides those rights.”
I would also use this argument to fight minimum wage laws.

Alberta Kanya - April 1, 2016

Definitely. In NYC we have agency fees and union dues–and a lot of the dues go to “other people’s party.” Freedom of association is denied.

JoAnn Ison - April 1, 2016

I wish we could get rid of unions. We no longer need them.

Charles Hall - April 1, 2016

If California is anything like Rhode Island. The union laws are bogus, due to the fact they were written and approved by the unions and the legal profession, both of whom
Bennitif by those laws. In RI. The ledguslature is made of mostly lawyers and past teachers. The rest of the unions also, bennifit, because they are all in bed with each other.
Would not surprise me that Ri is incubator, for the rest of the states due to its small size

Helen Wiley - April 1, 2016

Paying union dues should be by choice, not by force.

Donald & Sandra - April 1, 2016

It is time something positive was passed for the citizens and not big business. Yes, it is a blow to free speech.

De Ette Moon - April 1, 2016

Definitely a restriction of our free speech. Bigger government, less freedom. More freedom and free enterprise, less need for government.

M. Paris - April 1, 2016

More than impacting free speech, this embeds corruption into the public sector unions. They should not be allowed collective bargaining at all: they are already paid by involuntary contributions, torn from the working man, and collective bargaining in the hands of the greedy unions will make it ever worse. Look what they are doing to YOUR CHILDREN with this money NOW!?

Richard Bunnell - April 1, 2016

This is an area I would have opted out, had I been able, when I was working for NY state which required I pay union dues in order to work. This means they still support the unions.

Charles Wilcox - April 1, 2016

Of course it’s a mandatory forcing of acceptance to political representation that can often be diametrically opposite to an individual union member’s views and values!!

Gordon - April 1, 2016

This is taking away are rights!

David F Young - April 1, 2016

Choice is only for progressives
Bad ruling. The Obama appointees tow the party line.

Esther Cotton - April 1, 2016

Joining Unions should be optional. We supposedly live in a free nation,to make our own choices, as long as they don’t impose on others and their freedoms. How the Supreme Court can mandate and impose Unions on people is not freedom.

Peter Lowry - April 1, 2016

The rule of law is becoming a joke. All the more reason to stop Obama’s nomination.

Esther Rachwal - April 1, 2016

This is an outrage. How could the U.S.
Supreme Court have ruled this way except
the GOP did not have the guts to fight the
nomination of the liberal Justices when they needed the Senators approval. I blame the GOP as much as I blame this
Administration. How can they expect workers to pay Unions when they are not Union members?

Sherry - April 1, 2016

The decision stinks! Yes, it is an obstruction of free speech! Please, dear Lord, let us get a conservative in office who will uphold and protect the Constitution!

Steve Carson - April 1, 2016

The entire system is rigged. I am frustrated and angry.

Sam Spradling - April 1, 2016

Origionally unions were formed to protect the rights and safty of workers. Increasingly unions exist to collect funds to support the union leadership in their political activities without the approval of membership. Yes this is an infrengement of free speech Union membership should be by free choise. and supported by strong right to work laws in every state.

Timothy Gibbs - April 1, 2016

Workers who are non-union members should not ever have to pay anything that has to do with a membership they choose not to be a part of. This ruling flies in the face of first amendment rights.

Mike Solomons - April 1, 2016

Like healthcare, invasive progressive rules are inhibiting Freedoms we hold dear!

Evelyn Wiegert - April 1, 2016

Another “law” created by the so-called Supremes. They should not be able to make such a decision without a full court.
There must be a better way. A good Congress could help, perhaps, with a legislative solution.

Mary Craddock - April 1, 2016

Yes, I feel that it is an obstruction of free speech. It basically says you have to choose whatever the unions want.

Michael McCown - April 1, 2016

A huge wrong interpretation by the Supreme Court. This is definitely an error. It takes away the teachers “Free Speech Rights”.

Robert A. Holmes - April 1, 2016

The Supreme Court ruling is nauseating to me. It breaks my heart to see America take this big step backwards at this time, knowing full well that it need not have happened but for the untimely death of Justice Scalia. It is a setback with which we must now deal. It feels like returning to the starting line and rerunning a race that we were winning. I’m frustrated and upset.

JIm Biggers - April 1, 2016

Yes, this is against freedom of speech!

Vince Sardo - April 1, 2016

George Orwell’s novel ‘1984’ is coming true!

ron Ceres - April 1, 2016

I’ve lost all confidence in the Court and this Administration.

Philip Wise - April 1, 2016

This is an unconstitutional ruling, violating our rights. This is not law, SCOTUS can only give opinions and not make law.

Angela Wright - April 1, 2016

This is an obvious denial of freedom of (personal) speech. This teacher was not allowed to be an individual with a voice, like I believe the First Ammendment was intended to protect and preserve. One does not need a Union if they have a voice of their own.

Joe Lequia - April 1, 2016

It was definately a set back.This is one,among the many,reason I dont like unions.

Phil Parker - April 1, 2016

Another step down the rabbit hole for
the revisionists! This is an attack on
the foundation of America. Deplorable!

Cole Ferrell - April 1, 2016

I don’t know if it obstructs free speech, but it does appear to be a political donation, in which case perhaps the limitations the Democrats have attempted to apply to Super PACs and other political donations should apply. Why are corporations treated like villains and their contributions even to ad campaigns promoting a political agenda highly regulated, but it seems as if unions are treated with a double standard? Could unions fall under lobbying rules and restrictions perhaps?

Bruce Hawkins - April 2, 2016

You can spot errors in government when the only purpose behind legislation is CONTROL! Our founding fathers were all about insuring freedoms – not CONTROL over the citizenry! What a contrast can be seen with the thousands of CONTROL laws that are generated nowadays! Wake up the people!

Joe - April 2, 2016

I disagree with the decision; I believe the “Right to Work” approach that assures the freedom to choose instead of mandating support of the polical views of a union.

Dale Howe - April 2, 2016

It Sounds like an OBSTRUCTION of free speech to myself.

Judy Cox - April 2, 2016

We as citizens have no First Amendment rights any more. The American people are tired of big government and lobbyist control. I have no faith in the corrupt government we have today. We need to get rid of the whole bunch and start fresh. We need a government for the people once again.

Lynne Whatley - April 2, 2016

Yes. What can be done about these rulings that violate our Constitutional rights?

Orick Nightlinger - April 2, 2016

It is absolutely NOT an abridgement of free speech! If a person benefits in wages thru the union representing her/him/they should honestly support that effort monetarily, whether they are bona-fide members or not. If they do not, then they should be denied any wage, or benefit increase. Fair is fair.

Lois E Pera - April 2, 2016

YES….an obstruction…YES, YES, YES !
When I was teaching I HATED being forced to pay anything when I knew the political leanings of those getting MY MONEY ! I loved Scott WALKERS
WAY !!!

Dan Widmoyer - April 2, 2016

From my perspective as a school custodian this would kill my wages and benefits. There is a third party group (Sodexo) that manages us and when successful shut down unions cut wages in half and eliminate benefits. I hate supporting their democratic agenda. Liberal politics are nothing less than communism at a slower pace. The working industry along with any half way decent jobs are almost non existent. So I guess I’m stuck supporting something I’m actually against. I’m too old to reinvent myself again or I would. This country is destroying free market capitalism and it just makes me sick.

Michael Phillips - April 2, 2016

Does any one suspect that this administration would not have actively eliminated justice Scalia given it’s unlawful actions thus far? I have not yet heard a cause of death yet, has anyone else? Think maybe this is a push on the part of Liberals to further destroy our Constitutional Republic. I would not put it past this POTUS and administration to do just that and recall, just who as Cabinet level persons that this pres has nominated and the RINOs together with Dems and Independents have pushed through congress.

Our government is anymore for itself and not for America or Americans.

Victress Jenkins - April 2, 2016

This is just another good reason for “right to work” states!! The government as no business siding with the unions or vs versa!!

Archie - April 2, 2016

The Supreme Courts are doing their best to destroy the Constitution of the United States of America. We need to impeach the riffraff that is sitting on the bench.

Charla B - April 2, 2016

The ruling stinks and it is an obstruction of free speech!!!

Esther Pierce - April 2, 2016

So sad that unions have become puppets for political votes! It is one thing that they are strangling the economy with their golden fleece retirements with full insurance paid, but they
Also suck the life out of companies as they
Demand more & more $$$$ from employees who cannot say no. As the final nail, they pressure employees to vote democrat.

Carol Coy - April 2, 2016

I agree with the teacher. It’s the same as coercion. She has to support whatever the union decides, whether she is for or against a decision, a candidate or a ruling.

Tony Rader - April 2, 2016

Not at all, as in any union the collective power is what keeps the individual from being isolated and or abused by administration. A individual usually can not afford the legal fees associated with a legal fight with any governmental or corporate structure. But with a collective union you are afforded those types of support. Not to mention the wages and benefits which would gladly be cut by either of the management, as they are easily calculated cost liabilities. A individual even with exceptional abilities would still be voiceless, only cronyism would flourish but not well. Sadly there are not many corporate leaders that would consider teaching or accept those wages. Free speech does not exist in either government or corporate structures so the point is mute. Free speech only exists in a large public setting like belonging to a political party collective, or a small group in a private setting. Any thing in the work place is only a utopia dream.

Charles Winegardner - April 2, 2016

This ruling is abhorrent to all freedom loving people. It tramples on the Constitution, so, yes, it is an obstruction of free speech.

Rebecca Anton - April 2, 2016

This is a direct violation of free speech and
freedom of choice. The supreme court ruling in this case is totally outrageous and in direct violation of our constitution. They have become “Obamatized” at the peril of all Americans. The supreme court needs a wake-up call and a fresh lesson on the constitution.

JOHN SLATER - April 2, 2016

This is a blow to free speech and takes money from those who disagree with the unions rights to support them. This is why I don’t support unions and it show the abuse of power of the unions

Rick Williams - April 2, 2016

Both closed & Union shops are antithetical to free speech for the general membership. Gov’t. Unions are patently illegal — who represents the owners’ positions? Such socialistic machinations are both ludicrous and predictable from the Progressives’ utopian delusions.

Colc - April 2, 2016

It’s worse than an obstruction of Free Speech, it is extortion with a nice veneer. No one should be forced to pay for something that violates their beliefs, not only do teachers have no say in these union decisions, their money is used to promote candidates that they are diametrically opposed to. It is extortion, and directly violates the Constitution.

Nalda - April 2, 2016

Of course this is infringement on free speech. The court has lost it’s moorings under the Obama administration. They are afraid to do anything other than what this President indicates so one can only surmise they are being blackmailed or threatened in some way. If their are lobbyists at the bottom line of the Union Dues in any way then it is political and if I do not agree with the stand the Union is taking then I am being held captive to the unions belief system for which they take my dues and then use it to stand for something I am against and I have no ability to say so and withhold my dues in order to make my stand clear and in line with my Stated belief. Therefore I have no right to speech at all if it is contrary to the Union.

Colc - April 2, 2016

I know of a teacher that wanted out of the teacher’s union because he did not agree with their politics, and he was harassed and treated like garbage by the principal simply for wanting out of the union. The principal finally fired him, because he dared to get angry at his abominable treatment. He has been black-listed by the principal of the school where he worked, and can’t even get a job in the private sector now. The family has been suffering financially while he is retraining for another occupation. He is in his fifties, and had been teaching for over 30 years.

Peter ulrich - April 2, 2016

It is the wrong decision – was probably politically influenced.

Sherry Dunn - April 2, 2016

Of course, it is a slap in the face of all Constitutional-loving Americans. Unions winning is never a good thing when they can force the hand of any American worker to have no say in where their own money goes. We lost a great friend in the SC when Antonin Scalia passed away so suddenly. Thank you, Jim Demint for all you and the fine folks at Heritage Foundation do for us. We have a real crisis at hand.

Ingrid Dohler - April 2, 2016

Of course, it is an obstruction of free speech! There are only a few Justices that actually pay attention to and abide by their oath to the Constitution. It is appalling

Daniel sopher - April 2, 2016

This ignores the individuals political beliefs, and gives political power to the union “leaders”without them being responsible to the workers for things other than negotiations between the workers, and their employers.

Ruth Lawler - April 2, 2016

This is one of many insults to free speech. Bear in mind, according to the Supremes, burning the flag is legal as free speech. Therefore, the act of baking a cake and selling it, or not, should also be free speech. Remember “We deserve the Right to refuse service to anyone”? Just saying to the buyer, “I don’t feel like baking you a cake” should be enough, no discrimination involved.

Elizabeth Whitehouse - April 2, 2016

A truly conservative reading of the first amendment is that the government cannot take action against those who criticize it. There is actually no mention of an individual’s right speak about other topics.
If you belong to a union (willingly or not) you pay your dues. If you don’t like what the union is doing, you speak out there.

Darl Easton - April 2, 2016

Unions are parasites. They only exist where the is an employer and employees, and suck blood ($$$) from both. Publis unions/associations must be prohibited from making political donations (bribes).

Allie - April 2, 2016

Good Morning!
Thank you for the opportunity. My opinion, and solution, is quite simple. The Union can take my money without my consent- it’s just money! But the union or it’s representatives can not tell me how to think, how to vote, how to feel, how to opine. They can be useful in securing a good contract for the members but that’s all they will do for me.
I continue to be free to vote how I please. They can “hope” to have so much power but We, The People, have the power of the vote and decision making through our elected officials. Hence the importance of electing ethical leaders – unlike a community organizer with zero experience who at present sits in our WH!

Charles Seip - April 2, 2016

The Constitutional Republic is dying the death of 1000 cuts.

ralph del bove - April 2, 2016

new york city twu started a political fund when I found how liberal they really were I got out quick

Jeanne DiLisio - April 2, 2016

Yes, the ruling is an obstruction of free speech.

Judith Rae - April 2, 2016

This does infringe upon free speech and freedom of choice. Funny how the liberals want to end Citizens United, yet, they exclude their Unions (also, a group of citizens united, correct?) If they end that then all groups, Unions, churches, etc. should/could be placed in the same bill.

Walt King - April 2, 2016

The vetting and appointment process for Justices is flawed. They can lie about their Constitutional beliefs to get appointed then make and support decisions directly opposite. We are now at the tipping point for America with the next appointment.

Chris M. - April 2, 2016

I have long believed that Unions have way outlived their usefulness. The teaching sector unions protect bad teachers and stifle the efforts of good ones. The open market would leave teachers to be promoted and fired based on their job performance, not protected under the union for poor work. Unions in any part of the public sector are an oxymoron. They and government should not be mixed in ANY way. The unions have become nothing more than bloated bully organizations that dictate the opinions of the “members” forced to fund them. Not to mention the political influence they have become, much more to the tune of a lobbying group.

Bob Giargiari - April 2, 2016

Any day the unions win in their corrupt assault on our constitutional freedoms is a BAD DAY.

Arlin R. Johnson, Jr. - April 2, 2016

What do I think of unions money rip off in the form of “dues” or whatever. If congress would do its job and impeach Obama, all czars and government jobs given without congressional approval and close up freedom limiting financial waste building agencies like the IRS, HUD, EPA, NEA -on down a long list, America would be far better off. BIG government has us hog tied with a rope around the neck of our Constitution. Someone with guts needs to set things straight or the only nation created by God and our founding fathers may perish from the earth. Pray NOT!

Robert Frere - April 2, 2016

This is absolutely an obstruction of free speech. Further, Public Sector Unions are a scourge on our entire republic form of government. They should be dismantled.

George H. Schryer - April 2, 2016

As a long time opponent of labor unions, many family members are/or were in unions, anytime you give money to a union you can expect that their 1st priority is not to use it for your benefit but for their political survival. I have worked all my life and never had to pay some one to keep my job.

Joe Gauta - April 2, 2016

This ruling is more than an affront on free speech. It is a set back to common sense. Governments should not force their citizens to buy goods or services from private organizations, such as is the case with PPACA and this story. This proves the immense importance of electing a president that will nominate judges who respect the constitution.

George H. Schryer - April 2, 2016

Our Supreme Court is no longer a arbiter of our Constitution. It is just a another political machine of our over bloated government. When the Chief Justice changes wording of a decision that makes it a law we have lost our Constitution to the willful use of politicians.

Jim Tarrant - April 2, 2016

The opinion of the SCOTUS is a blatant violation of the First Amendment. Congress needs to step in and fulfill it’s duty under the Constitution and reign it the Court.

Howard Simmons - April 2, 2016

I believe it not only aginst free.speech but also against the right to work.

janice fish - April 2, 2016

If you have to join a union, you are automatically supporting a political party if you agree with that parties views or not.

A F McSwain - April 2, 2016

I stand with Melissa Quinn. I believe she is very courageous in initiating this battle, and even more courageous in her determination to continue it.

Gwynneth L Elvin - April 2, 2016

This is definitely obstruction of free speech. Having worked in state government for many years, I experienced this requirement of having to pay union
dues involuntarily first hand.

kevin t mabin - April 2, 2016

sounds like they are making the individual kiss the ring.

Pauline FitzPatrick - April 2, 2016

Very, very bad for us!! As I think, the liberals and Socialist want to, bit by bit, destroy the Constitution!!

Roger Sanders - April 2, 2016

This is outragious! God help us!

Geraldine Di Cristina - April 2, 2016

Absolutely outrageous!

Linda Fogleman - April 2, 2016

No one should be made to pay union dues.

EL Pelisari - April 2, 2016

Absolutely this is another significant erosion of our Constitutional right as Americans to free speech. Where does it end?! I fear for the future and the basic individual freedoms upon which this Nation was established and flourished.

TIM - April 2, 2016

I am sure the decision was made in favor of the Union because all employees benefit from the Unlon’s collective bargaining. I wonder if an employee was able too opt out would also opt out of any salary or benefit increase due to the Union’s work on the collective bargaining; most likely not. Few, if any, employees go to their union meetings; this is where they have their free speech. And if they don’t like their union’s stance, then they can find employment elsewhere.
In my opinion I do not think this interferes with an employee’s free speech.

George Wages - April 2, 2016

Not only the unions won, but the anti-American facist supporting Hussein Obama and the NWO won. Their seizing of our constitutional rights supported by socially activist SCOTUS is illegal and treachery. I don’t know if they are blinded by their ignorant ideology or just anti-American. From a Vietnam vet with 5 college educated children and 46 years of marriage.

Art Masonc - April 2, 2016

Are unions even Constitutional?

Walter Gutshall - April 2, 2016

This is what happens when judges don’t make there decisions based on the constitution, but on their political beliefs.

Kathy Ledet - April 2, 2016

the Constitution was written to mean exactly what it said. There are no hidden meanings. Free speech is free speech

Franklin D. Doty - April 2, 2016

Of course it is a violation of free speech, just as about 90 % of the laws the federal government has passed in the last 100 years have no Constitutional authorization. The Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of what is Constitutional. The people are sovereign, and it is the duty of citizens to disobey and refute unconstitutional laws. I suggest googling Publius Huldah and watching the very fine lectures on the Constitution by a fine lady who is a true Constitution scholar.

Bill & Betty Whitehead - April 2, 2016

Mr. Friedrich’s statement is correct. This is a violation of his free speech rights in that he is being forced to fund a political activity by the union(s). These negotiations are necessarily political in nature and to force him to support with monies political activity against his will definitely qualifies as standing in a court of law. But with the Marxists, Communists and Secularists now sitting in SCOTUS this will remain a problem until we have at least 12 to 16 years of commonsense, Constitutional leadership to replace them and laws that suborn the U.S. Constitution. Sad to say, isn’t it?

Katherine Monroe - April 2, 2016

Absolutely this a blow to freedom to choose whom and what one wants to support.

Gerald Eberwein, US Army (Retired) - April 2, 2016

This is a definite blow to the rights of citizens to exercise their right to free speech, However, the right to steal money or property from another is another issue. To compel non-members to pay for dues to a union they aren’t members of is tantamount to theft. Laws should be written to allow the unions to bill the non-member employees for the services rendered on their behalf in collective bargaining activities should be written, Those costs must be for only those efforts and that can be prorated at a cost per employee calculation. No other costs can be applied. It would compel the unions to figure the cost per staff at a per minute figure and do the same type calculation model used in the legal profession. Since the union is supposed to be a non-profit organization, there can be no inflation beyond actual cost. This billing would be only for non-union employees of a union local. Union members would have these costs absorbed in their dues. It would probably be up to the states to enact such laws.

Susan Thompson - April 2, 2016

It is outrageous to require teachers to support issues & promote people who hold positions that the individual teacher does not approve via the union! A CLEAR violation of FREE SPEECH!

Jerry Metcalf - April 2, 2016


Robert Tait - April 2, 2016

Yes…They continue to erode our freedom!

Vicky Marquis - April 2, 2016

Yes, it violates the deeply held beliefs of some of the public sector union members., like it did my sister who worked for the Illinois EPA. It may even violate their religious beliefs, such as abortion, same-sex marriage, and many other pop social behaviors recently gaining legitimacy in America. It’s another follow the money situation where every day working people are forced to financially support the other person’s candidate! I call BS!

Lee - April 2, 2016

I have always stood against forced union participation and still do. Allowing the “opt out” for part acknowledges there is a right to choose. By forcing employees to “fund” negotiations they have put a condition on that right to choose. You can choose but only to this point, therefore denying their right to “full” free choice.

Andrew Blake - April 2, 2016

Completely illogical. Totalitarian in its implications.

Randy Abdallah - April 2, 2016

Yes, if Ihave to spend My Own money but then don’t get a chance to decide how My money is spent,that takes away My right of free speech. I should and must have a voice if I am Forced to give,otherwise, this is like taxation without representation.

Sydney Wood - April 2, 2016

Yes, this is an outrage!

Craig Thayer - April 2, 2016

This decision constitutes more grease enabling our nation to slide farther into state-controlled oblivion. Decisions of this magnitude require moral objectives which this Supreme Court does not have.

Bob Miller - April 2, 2016

The Supreme Court has become nothing but a leftist mouth piece. It’s rule of law is a joke. I have no respect for it.

Eric smart - April 2, 2016

I cannot think of any logical reason that anyone could have for supporting this court ruling except political. This country has become a bunch of idiots!!!!!!!!!

Kathy Kingston - April 2, 2016

This clearly a violation of my right to choose! It is said that “money talks.” And it does! If my money talks, then this ruling clearly obstructs my right to free speech.

Phil Fetzer - April 2, 2016

I have generally followed this Ca. teacher’s efforts, and certainly agree that it is a Freedom of Speech issue. Briefly in the early ’60’s, while still in school, I wanted to work part time in construction, determining that all jobs were union controlled I found out I needed a sponsor to join the union. I found a small contractor who would do so. I passed the test and went to apprenticeship night school, and my sponsor gave me a part time job, at the going wage of $.85/hour. I learned a lot, especially how controlling the union was. Suffice it to say there is much more to the story. I went to college, into the military, worked for others, started my own business, etc. I long ago determined that unions are not needed, and benefit only the few in power.

Lynn Petersen - April 2, 2016

The Unions once again are in control as they always have been when it comes to politics. Teachers do not have the freedom they once had to educate children with an open mind. Looks like Scalia’s death was planned, with this one more victory for the career politicians.

Quentin Smart - April 2, 2016

Yes,I do.

Donna - April 2, 2016

Strongly disagree but expect nothing less from Liberal justices on the court. Each person should be able to decide if they want to pay or be represented by the Union.

Gail Bryan - April 2, 2016

This is why we must have a real republican in the White House.

June Kaye Fitch - April 2, 2016

I definitely feel this is an infringement on our free speech. I would not want my money to fund a political position that I disagreed with.

Pastor Ralph W. Stahley - April 2, 2016

It seems the Supreme Court no longer just interprets the law, it now tries to make the law what they want it to be.

Daniel W. Mummey - April 2, 2016

I have a Voice with Heritage! Thank You! Comment: Absolutely a breech of Constitutional law. First of all, there should never have been public sector unions. They are a pay-to-play injustice and have the effect of muting, silencing & intimidating non-members. Civil service mission is totally lost in this corruption of government and the politisizing of both private & public sector. Former USDA-Forest Service employee

terrence lind - April 2, 2016

no brainer wrong wrong wrong

Duffy Spies - April 2, 2016

Free Speech is only free until you’re arrested for it. That day, unfortunately, is coming like an out of control freight train.

Richard McClaine - April 2, 2016

Once again, the SCOTUS has interfered in the Constitutional right of an employee to voice their true belief relating to union participation. The result: monetary punishment. Why is it so difficult for the Court (both Left and Right) to simply interpret the “wording” of the U.S. Constitution the way it is written….and not have to interject their own personal political biases?

Robert Bigelow - April 2, 2016

I think this was not a fair ruling. I do not
beleive employess should be forced to pay uniion dues. I feel the unions exert
too much influence on leftist, liberal, elections. This has become a method of making employees contribute to views they do not support. POOR RULING!

Robert Henderson - April 2, 2016

States had better actively fight back against unconstitutional gov’t in general and unconstitutional rulings by the subversive reprobates on SCOTUS in particular, or we will have a Revolution like no other.

Carol AveLallemant - April 2, 2016

Yes, I agree that this is the wrong decision!

Judy Milkey - April 2, 2016

It continues to limit our freedoms in a lot of areas, free speech included

David Willingham - April 2, 2016

Just more corruption, workers forced by the government, in collusion with the communist unions, to support something they may be totally against…

Dolores Smith - April 2, 2016

Once again, the union ‘mafia bosses’ have won. Why should workers fund their political coffers rather than take home their hard-earned dollars if they so choose? This is another travesty of the liberal left.

Karen Bartlett - April 2, 2016

I don’t know what is meant by union positions taken “during negotiations…reflect their political choices”. In what way?

I can’t opine if I don’t know what you mean.

Peter C Jensen - April 2, 2016

I taught for a decade in a LAUSD elementary school after retiring as a Navy Chaplain, and chaffed every year under the union mandating my paying dues to a politically active organization which opposed my personal convictions as a Christian. I am totally supportive of Friedrichs’ legal suit to overturn this unfair practice which is enforced by our courts.

Mark - April 2, 2016

In my opinion all unions are criminal. But if people are dumb enough to give their money away to someone for nothing. What in the world are they doing with a union in the government in the first place?
And we wonder why our educations are in trouble. The states should fire the teachers and start over.

Herbert Scott - April 2, 2016

This occupant of the Oval Office has managed, with the acquiescence of the other political party, to hi-jack our country through many means, but particularly through packing our judicial system with anti-constitutional judges. Surviving his innumerable attacks on our nation seems increasingly unlikely, particularly if the election later this year does not achieve the proper results.

William Haynes - April 2, 2016

In a way, it violates our free speach rights, but more so, like so many other things in this crappy admin, it takes away more of the public’s money whcih is in short supply as it is!!

BENJAMIN Smith - April 2, 2016

Definitely a ruling against free speech

Tom - April 2, 2016

Yes, this is a violation to free speech!

AM Newcomer - April 2, 2016

We MUST get another Scalia, but with SO many RINOs that seems almost impossible!? Sick how a SCOTUS can be so corrupt and political!! Very sad for our country.

Daniel Van Wagoner - April 2, 2016

This is becoming all too common. The bill of rights enables the people to make choices that ensure a clean conscience. The state has systematically, consistently, taken steps to remove that ability of its people. We are appearing moe like Stalin or the Gestapo all the time. Communist societies are entirely athiest and secular, which is needed to control a population. Our system is to be controlled by the people, not the state.

Amelia Bond - April 2, 2016

Yes. I believe this is a violation to our freedom of speech. Hopefully, next year with a person that believes in the Constitution will be on the court. Thanks for keeping us informed.

Lois McLaughlin - April 2, 2016


Michael R Shullenberg - April 2, 2016

As a former Government employee, of course it’s a loss for free speech. Just read any of the Union updates and you’ll see they are totally Democrat in their propaganda. Much of the Democrat success lies in this money which no one can opt out of paying and keep their job.

Jim Palm - April 2, 2016

Yes, I do believe that the agency fees for the sake of collective bargaining are political. Those teachers who disagree with the bargaining position are being denied their right of dissent, which is guaranteed in the first amendment of the Constitution. Thanks for the information and for standing for the basic principles that made America great.

Kevin Hummel - April 2, 2016

Of Course!

Dawn Kirch - April 2, 2016

Very much so, incredible those judge’s can live with themselves. Absolutly a political move.

Timothy R. Buttner - April 2, 2016

I dealt with this question my whole professional life: of course the unions’ position is anti-American and unconstitutional, leading also to abuses and financial foolishness: here in PA hundreds of subdivisions are suffering “structural deficits” created in the name of “education,” but based on pension promises…

Francis D. Coleman - April 2, 2016

Of course this is a limitation not only of free speech but a curtailment of freedom itself. What can be done to reestablish this important freedom?

Francis D. Coleman - April 2, 2016

There is no question on my mind that this curtails not only free speech but personal freedom itself. It is an outrage! How can this horrible trrend be reversed?

pat plesh - April 2, 2016

This is a disgrace and why any decisions need to be on hold until January 2017! What happens now w/the Right to Work states?

Charles Lingo - April 2, 2016

This ruling is a direct violation of the13th Amendment because it directly requires a wage earner to pay for an unwanted action by others. This is outright slavery or as the amendment states “Involuntary Servitude”.

That this problem still exists is a direct failure of the Senate to follow through on their “confirmation requirement” and continue their oversight of this confirmee. They also take an oath to support and defend the Constitution.

rob - April 2, 2016

i believe that the media is painting our leaders as “nannies” instead of the tyrants that they are. Many of the rules and laws passed they themselves dont adhere to. Sound familiar??

David Ray - April 2, 2016

This was a bad ruling and a good reason to not appoint a new justice until after the election. Also a good reason to elect a republican.

James Crisman - April 2, 2016

Why didn’t Friedrichs argue against the requirement for her to belong to a union in the first place, unless they are saying the collective bargaining requirement is synonymous with being a member of the union? Unless she chooses to be a member, her freedom is being infringed just by having to join.

David A. Danello - April 2, 2016

It’s possible -only- because…..
REPUBLICAN leaders -allow- a
FREE, gross violation of the
Oath of Office, which -no- LEFTIST
(e.g. Marxist like Obama, Sanders, et al)
can HONESTLY take.

Jon Thomas - April 2, 2016

For clarity, if the teacher opts out of the union they must still pay the fees, so if the union reaches a better deal does it include the that non-union member because they paid the fee?
Our District here in Nebraska has a very small union membership, right to work state, my wife opted out years ago because we can afford better attorneys to represent her, if need be, salaries are not an issue in Nebraska, so it is just representation only. Does she have to pay the dues for nothing or is she entitled to coverage?

Mary F Buk - April 2, 2016

At the age of 70 and politically and socially in-the-know, this Union battle has been going on my entire life. Union members/workers have always been ‘controlled’ by the heads of the unions. This has always been an obstruction to free speech. Politics has always influenced and corrupted the Unions and the lean of the Unions has always been one sided. Union workers on the ‘other’ side are forced to pay for what goes against their beliefs. This is definitely a violation of free speech, plain and simple. But, with our current left leaning courts, it has prevailed for decades. It is imperative that the next Supreme Court Judge replacing Justice Scalia correct this imbalance.

Robert Goddard - April 2, 2016

Not an unexpected outcome given the balance oft he SCOTUS. It is imperative to make sure the current POTUS nominee is not confirmed by the senate AND a conservative POTUS gets that nomination and perhaps another during their term.

Archi - April 2, 2016

The graft that is allowed in this country is astounding! Any other country apart from Nigeria it is illegal. No wonder many other countries detest the USA.

john westrope - April 2, 2016

As a taxpayer and citizen, i can see no justification for any government union.

Lawrence R. Whalley - April 2, 2016

Unions are per se an affront to free speech. This ruling by the fatuous Supreme Court is clearly absurd and should call for impeachment proceedings against the ones who upheld the union position.

Christopher Headley - April 2, 2016

This is a blantant violation of the 1st Amendment right also a LAW Of The Land. These SCOTUS do not make LAWS. I vote that Supreme Court Justices be voted in by the people and never appointed by dictators on either side of the parties.

M. D. Wood - April 2, 2016

Without having done in-depth research and based solely on your article, yes, it would be something I would consider an infringement on my political choice and it would be attempting to speak for me.

joanna everett - April 2, 2016

This is not the correct decision.
Why should a non union member be forced to pay onion dues. Maybe they should ask a second grade school class!

Thomas Sartori - April 2, 2016

I agree with you that public employees have been harmed by this decision. The conservatives need help on the supreme court and can only come by winning the presidential election this year.

John Morton - April 2, 2016

Absolutely ridiculous. My wife taught and she agrees that unions should not force dues on anyone. Pure politics.

Frances - April 2, 2016

I still do not understand it all. I know the supreme court is not completely sold out on protecting our rights under the Constitution.

Clayton - April 2, 2016

I have a hard time believing that judges on the Supreme Court can’t see that this is a complete denial of freedom of speech, that should be guaranteed by the constitution. I’m truly afraid of what the liberals are doing to this country. What the hell can we do about this?

Scott Brooks - April 2, 2016

Yes, this is an affront to free speech as unions are typically supporters of liberals via campaign cash donations. Since all workers who are forced to join a union or have a portion of their pay confiscated to supporting this activity is therefore a violation of free speech.

I support right to work laws!

William Dixon - April 2, 2016

The Supreme Court 4-4 finding was and is a clear call for the election of a strong conservative to the Presidency this fall. This type of ruling is moving our country in the direction of European Socialism. It is so obviously a political attack on the First Amendment that I can hardly find the words to express my complete and absolute disgust.

Verne Gibbs - April 2, 2016

If public employees don’t want to pay to support Union bargaining on their behalf then they should reject or be denied any be fit gained for union employees at the bargaining table. It’ s simple. You can’t have it both ways.

Miriam Minter Diebold - April 2, 2016

I am very grieved with this decision by the Supreme Court!
Their decision denies our Constitutional rights for “Free Speech”.

Var - April 2, 2016

As I watch these judicial rulings, and the Congressional, and Executive rulings also happening, which change our laws, and our traditional way of life in the United States of Americas, this is what I see first-hand:
These changes are continuously marching in the same direction, against conservatives, against Christians, against the Constitution, against traditional families, against traditional values and morals, against small business, against home owners, against our quality of education, against freedom of speech and all the other amendments in the Bill of Rights (the 1st 10 amendments to our Constitution). Anyone that has been around since the early 1950’s, and looking back on our freedoms and rights can easily see these change and the direction they move. It is a dark and continual march into slavery to our government; most often in little steps, but occasionally big steps at full run. And those voting for these changes are entirely blind to where this march leads.

lee wolverton - April 2, 2016

Yes it is. It needs to be overturned.

Scott Hendrie - April 2, 2016

This is another obstruction of free speech and is symptomatic of the poor quality justices who have been added to the SCOTUS. Individuals who have either zero comprehension of the Constitution and other founding documents of this country or who are, like Barrack Hussein Obama, terrorists towards our country intent on destroying it by “progressing” it to a European state.

Frank W. Riegert - April 2, 2016

This ruling was total BS!!

H. Alex - April 2, 2016

Dear Heritage Staff, In the 1990’s I worked in a printshop that was unionized and Colorado is not a Right To Work state so membership was mandatory. The key to being free of union socialism is to promote the right to work and not compel workers to join the union. At one point I told a friend at work about the US Supreme Court’s Beck Decision, and how we could minimize our dues. He and I both bowed out of paying some of the dues and only paid for our share of the representation costs mentioned in the article. As time went on and the printing union proved to be corrupt and useless, my friend called the NLRB and started the process of voting out the union altogether. Under agency guidance we had informational sessions and in a matter of months voted the union out by a close margin. We still got raises and benefits were never cut. We realized that years of dues had been paid for no gain to us. It was the Gates Rubber Company’s in house printshop in Denver Colorado. Thanks, Alex

Al Faro - April 2, 2016

Collective bargaining benefits all and therefore all should pay union dues. One of our nations greatest problems is a diminished union representation of workers. The charts show rather clearly that the reduction in union membership has corresponded to the reduction of middle class wages and thereby the reduction of the middle class. Without collective bargaining the new jobs created are mostly low wage jobs and do not help the economy. Corporations pay the lowest wage possible without caring for the middle class lifestyle that has been lost in our country. Our economy has never grown from the top down but grows from the middle out and without collective bargaining we just do not get that middle out growth.

Lee Jost - April 2, 2016

Friedrichs is rightt. SCOTUS is political and wrong.

BETTY MUNSON - April 2, 2016

Well, we know the unions rule here in California, but in the good old USA who would think they rule the Supreme Court, no matter the political stripe of the president who appoints them. What about FREE speech don’t you understand?

Steven Kinney - April 2, 2016

Hey, I’m married to a 30 year public school teacher. She and I agree with Rebecca Friedrichs position. Please keep fighting the good fight!

Mark - April 2, 2016

I support the ideal of organized labor and should be protected by law. I believe unions should not contribute to politicians and politicians should not accept their donations. The unions business is with the employer. Politicians should stay out of their business.

JAG - April 2, 2016

The 9 seem to have lost their sense of perspective

Janet Reyes - April 2, 2016

Absolutely not! I was on the negotiating team for 30 years. The teachers in our district that objected to agency fee were those who came from private schools ( most of them religious schools). When asked why they wanted t I change to public school they said that they wanted better pay, benefits and a good retirement.
However they didn’t want to pay Agency Fee. What a bunch of pious freeloaders! But, they sure expected the union to come to their defense if they got in trouble with the Principal or the Administeration.

Axel De La Soujeole - April 2, 2016

Obstruction of free speech

Richard Miller - April 2, 2016

Why, If the court is supposed to be ruling on Constitutionality, having liberal vs conservative decisions? Maybe the constitution needs to be amended to select Supreme court justices selected with term limits.

Jack Gallman - April 2, 2016

I wholeheartedly agree with the position Ms. Frederichs argued in this case. As a conservative I grow more and more concerned with the ever liberal leanings of culture, especially in politics. I wonder how our founding fathers would react- little doubt they are turning in their graves. Decisions like these, make it more and more imperative that we have strict-constructionist judges.

Brad - April 2, 2016

Thanks, Heritage for all your hard work, dedication, and devotion to Liberty.

Nancy Brizzee - April 2, 2016

Yes, of course it is!

Dennis Eben - April 2, 2016

I agree with the idea that the Supreme Court should follow the Constitution and not their personal biases like Justice Scalia. I just sent Senator Michael Bennet to tell him this after he published a speech he made at the DU Law School, saying that Congress should consider the judge that Obama has nominated.

Jean Newby - April 2, 2016

I have always been against Union for teachers. .The unions never helped the whole 30 years I taught in Atlanta Public Schools.

David Giffin - April 2, 2016

This is unquestionably unfair and not right.

Larry Propheter - April 2, 2016

Civil servants should not even Have a union.
As for the Supreme Court, being Ruled by 5 Men in black robes is not republican government.

john - April 2, 2016

from what I have read it looks like it’s another way to obstruct free speech. the union bosses/leaders are definitely going to use it to their benefit(s). that is why we need to support those that stand up for our Constitutional Rights like: myheritage, right to work foundation or committee, American center for law and justice, national association for gun rights, florida gun rights, campaign for liberty, national pro life alliance, and others out there fighting for our Constitutional rights, faith, and Godly Christian beliefs and more.

Vonzeil Saunders - April 2, 2016

I do think that this an obstruction to free speech.

Edward Wing - April 2, 2016

The left has never progressed by free association or voluntary funding. Confiscation has always been their method.

Ted Doiron - April 2, 2016

This is a tough one to explain/predict. The Constitution gives certain rights to individuals and other rights to the majority. When an individual’s rights conflict with the rights of the majority, that becomes a quagmire-in-law. I’m not yet ready to favor one over the other and the Courts have not yet been able to discern it either.
I won’t see it resolved in my lifetime. Ted Doiron.

Joe Schmidt - April 2, 2016

Hmm. Sounds familiar.
The government wants your money for itself or its associates;
a “tax” will not fly, so a fee;
“dues” will not fly, so a fee;
we could call it “fee…ding” at the table of the working man and woman.

Virginia Lange - April 3, 2016

And who will decide how much those “agency fees” will be. this is a blatant coercion and abuse of the workers’ rights!!

Patrick Gallagher - April 3, 2016

Definitely – no question!

Bill Randlett - April 3, 2016

I think you are right, no one should be required to pay dues to anyone in order to hold a job and that’s what the unions require. I have fought them before and they are nothing more than criminals.

Jeneane Elliott - April 3, 2016

My husband always had to pay union dues to The Machinist Union to work at United Airlines. It was a closed shop. And we all know that The Machinist Union is very much liberal. How is this any different from the teachers union? I agree that our rights are constantly being eroded. I worry about our religious freedoms most of all.

Emilio Gonzalez-Chavez - April 3, 2016


Linda Lee - April 3, 2016

Another reason to withhold filling Justice Scalia’s seat until after a new president is sworn in.
My experience with teacher’s unions has been that they are all about union representatives and stewards and have cowed management.

Don Holt - April 3, 2016

This is a blowxto free speech. The collectivization of men has overcome personal freedom and responsibility.

Tedd Kunkel - April 3, 2016

If we were a free country a person could choose. Not so in this tyrannical climate. She should probably teach in a private setting that offers a better teaching environment anyway. Our public schools have already failed nationally.

James Coyle - April 3, 2016

Our daughter is a school teacher in NH and is forced to pay union dues. Because she has not been tenured in the system her union will not represent her in her current dispute with the school administration. They collect her dues monthly for five years, however, no representation until she is tenured.

James - April 3, 2016

I think hazardous working conditions such as miners, etc.should be unionized and all others should be outlawed like the stupid teachers union. They extored money from others for the democratic party.

Bob mais - April 3, 2016

this is wrong. most unions are now a get rich scheme for a few Union bosses

Larry Lancaster - April 3, 2016

This is a clear violation of our constututionally protected rights and needs to be overtruned immediately.

judy evans - April 3, 2016

Unions have served a good purpose, but have also followed the way of greed and self service. Workers have a voice as a union but the union bosses have now stopped that voice and replaced it with what serves the bosses instead of the worker. Union “bosses” never go on strike or lose pay while striking for instance. Unions are more of a mafia, strong-arming those they are supposed to serve, effectively taking the right to free speech away from the workers. I oppose forced union dues.

Diane Woodard - April 3, 2016

If we can only make it until January 20th

Robin E Clark - April 3, 2016

If the “union” paid for all of the education required for the individual teacher to get his or her credentials allowing them to be able to teach in the state of question, then there could possibly be a requirement of fees levied by the “union”. However, my father taught in California public schools for 15 years back in the 50’s and 60’s and I can’t recall him ever receiving a “dime” towards his education from the “union”.
Therefore, YES, the forced fees ARE an infringement on the 1st Amendment Rights of the individual teacher involved.

Jacqueline Fiedler - April 3, 2016

Yet another infringement by the Unions on our ability to have free speech. Obnoxious. Didn’t realize that the SCOTUS could rule based on a tie.

Margaret Hess - April 3, 2016

We now live with daily assaults on our freedoms. Appalling that we should have public sector unions that support candidates with contributions which effectively “encourage” lawmakers to increase public sector pay. Rather incestuous at best. Wide open taxpayer coffers.

Dennis Manthorne - April 3, 2016

This will never as long as these organizations are permitted to extort money from individuals that they then use to purchase political favors.

Harry and Anne - April 3, 2016

It seems no matter what we the people think, the “supremes”, five un-elected humans, have the power to overrule them! Did our ancestors who died for our very freedom really mean this? Again, God help America, no one else will. In Prayer
ps We live in a state that whenever we send a position paper to our senators ,it is always and we mean always, rejected with some vague comment like: ” I do appreciate your comment…. however, I’m voting, or my position is the exact opposite of yours”. Guess what their political party is?

Albert Pyle - April 3, 2016

I think the decision stinks; employees should not be made to help fund political positions that they disagree with. The purpose of unions should be only to arbitrate between workers and employees, and not to represent an emplyee’s political preferences, which they obviously can’t.
It seems that the only answer to this is to ban unions from the funding of political candidates/parties.

Albert Pyle - April 3, 2016

Absolutely! This is the reason unions should not be permitted to donate to political candidates/parties.

William - April 3, 2016

Employees, Public or Private should not have to pay Union dues nor fees if they choose not to for any reason. The SCOTUS has been wrong many times, and it is getting more liberal all the time. This is one of those times they are wrong.

Michael Miller - April 3, 2016

Where else are people forced to pay for something they don’t use or want? Oh yeah, Obamacare.
With rulings like this, we the people lose just a little more freedom.
I find it to be the height of hypocrisy for liberals/progressives to abdicate their freedoms to government. Aren’t they the ones who supposedly wanted to save us from government?

Karen Smith - April 3, 2016

One of the many reasons I dislike unions.
We work hard for our money and we should have a say on what political side it is used for.

Angela Landrum - April 3, 2016

This ruling is an obstruction to Justice and Free Speech granted to each individual in the United States of America, according to the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. No one person or group of persons alive today have the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, except for Christians who live their lives following the example of Jesus Christ. All other opinions therefore are not important. The Word of God, the Holy Sprit, and the Son of God are the only truth this world will ever know. Absolutely nothing in this world can prevent the will and purpose of Almighty God.

Kathleen - April 3, 2016

we’ve known for awhile the the NEA was corrupt and that CA specifically was the worst offender,this is a mighty blow against free speech and freedome of choice!

anne - April 3, 2016

loss of free speech and heavy handy tactics. we need protection from the liberals. no judge should allow him or herself a private opinion – only follow the letter of the constitution.

Lavonne Hunt - April 3, 2016

The Supreme Court sides with the teachers union bullies. They suck so much money from anywhere they can and silence those who disagree with them. They reward good union teachers with the best jobs and non-union teachers get the crap jobs. This is “collective bargaining.” NOT! This is a monopoly!

Judy - April 3, 2016

Yes it’s a violation particularly when you disagree with the stand that the union is putting forward. This is usually tilted towards the very liberal end of the scale where some of your other rights end up getting trampled while supporting the unions desires….there’s pretty much no free speech in some unions and if you disagree, your voice isn’t heard.

Glen Straker - April 3, 2016

The corrupt, power hungry labor unions and the federal labor board, are a large reason for the decay of America. The liberals of the Supreme Court will complete the destruction, if the wrong person is elected, and the wrong next Supreme Court Justice is appointed!!!!!

Glen Straker - April 3, 2016

The ruling by the Supreme Court against Friedrichs…….STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN!!!!!!!!

Jeremy. Wales - April 3, 2016

Yes, it sounds to me like a clear case of an obstruction of free speech. It also sounds like obstruction of thought, as well as representation.

Ed Glennie - April 3, 2016

Just another example why appointees to the Supreme Court should have one litmus test: Uphold and enforce the Constitution of the USA as it was written and intended by our founders. That would take some very strong fortitude and it is obvious that we do not have that with the current justices. I propose that new justices should have to sign a letter of resignation at the time of their oath taking that would be dated and accepted by Congress upon their first vote cast that did not uphold their oath which was to uphold the Constitution.

Arlette Elston - April 3, 2016

Absolutely it is a blow to free speech, and it underscores the importance of not holding a hearing on any Obama Supreme Court nominee!!

Charles Horne - April 4, 2016

It is just as absurd for an entire nation to willingly be subservient to the ‘opines’ of a handful of ‘black robes’ by considering their individual case decisions as public policy legislation. This mindset is a result of our own national ignorance of our Constitutional Republic, aided and abetted by a corrupt legal community. The only solution is an enlightened community (thanks Heritage Foundation for your efforts), but we are getting a mirror image government of who we are as a society.

Debra Mattern - April 4, 2016

Unions have their place and their right to express their opinions, but not with mandated funds from our personal paychecks. They can advertise, they can request help, but they should not steal anyone’s funds without their personal permission. If they think they are representing someone, they need to ask. To force employees to contribute, is to steal their $ and their conscious. Unions original purpose was to be representatives for employee’s, not their dictators. This is a breech of the Freedom of Speech! This goes agains our USA Constitutional rights and common sense!

Ruth HALLIBURTON - April 4, 2016

Not sure if this is a violation of free speech, but I’ve noticed that wages have been stagnant since more companies move to right-to-work states. Before that wages were negotiated.

Dunewood Truglia - April 4, 2016

Yes, it’s obviously a politically based infringement on free speech.

Mary Wilkinson - April 4, 2016

I don’t believe any American should be forced to contribute to union coffers. I think the need for unions is no longer needed I. Today’s society. They more often. Than not, effect the many to serve a few.

p west - April 4, 2016

It stinks, what does it take to wake up tax paying Americans?

Gregory Morris - April 4, 2016

Jim this is a travesty and shows the contempt for the Constitution on the part of the SCOTUS and Unions

Gerald carroll - April 4, 2016

Yes it violates freedom of speech! Just shows the importance of electing a conservative president!! I.e. Cruze!!

Henry C. Holder - April 4, 2016

It certainly is an obstruction of free speech. Teachers should not have to pay dues if the teacher does not wish to join the union. This also applies to government unions which are a waste.

Bill Coates - April 4, 2016

Not just a free speech problem, but another good reason to abolish the NLRB as well as the Taft-Hartley law. The problem is caused by government interference in individual liberty, and the right to make contracts, and the principle of free association.

GENE LINDSAY - April 4, 2016


Edra S Wrye - April 4, 2016

This is another example where MONEY
matters more than rights or any thing else.

Steve Weaver - April 4, 2016

Anything that can help individuals from being forced to pay any type of dues or fees should be eliminated. Today’s unions only benefit those workers who shouldn’t be there anyway and the national level union officials.

Pat A. - April 4, 2016

Justice Scalia’s death was at the right time for the leader of our nation to do his dirty work. When the unions began, it was for the worker’s good. Now the Union is usurping authority to do as they please…and getting away with it. This is nothing but control…and that is unconstitutional!

Laraine Hannan - April 4, 2016

Just more corruption going on.

kaye watson - April 4, 2016

people have a right to choose positions, but I don’t know if this is a violation of free speech.

Clark Lopez - April 4, 2016

I generally agree that people right’s are being forfeited. U fortunately, the sudden loss of the Scalia vote presents a peculiar situation that favors liberal decisions.

bruce blinn - April 5, 2016

Outrageous and a terrible blow to the First Amendment. Public service employees’ pay and pension benefits dwarf those of the private sector, and their Unfunded Pension Liabilities threaten the future of every American city.

Deb S - April 5, 2016

People need to wake up and see what is happening. This is not a good thing for America and the freedom of people who live here. Congress is failing us and so is the Supreme Court. What and who is gaining by this? The American people are being shaken down and used for every hard penny they earn. I am sad for the young people coming up after us.

Carol Powell - April 5, 2016

My opinion is that all unions be made to disband. They are just ways the leaders can get rich off the workers who pay dues.

Anthony Landry - April 5, 2016

I believe unions are a thing of the past. They were once so needed, they were part of what made America, they gave you the right to work. Now all they do is cause problems that sometimes shut down huge business and have them move oversees, why because they cannot afford the salaries the unions demand, Teachers should be working according to there ability to teach, not because they have a teaching degree and the union says so. That might be one reason why our children are not learning in the first place,

Gerald Waldon - April 5, 2016

This a perfect example of union socialism encouraged by the federal government. To force someone to pay dues or fees just to work in a certain profession does step all over your freedom. If one wants to join a union, fine. If not, they should not be forced to do so. Right to work states have more thriving economies that the union strapped states. But we continue down the dark path anyway!

Jeanette Zook - April 5, 2016

This is an obstruction. Unions were good at one time but have lost sight of their purpose.

Robert Bob McClintock - April 5, 2016

Hi Jim: Greetings and all that. YES, I agree that the Sop.Crt. made a bad ruling. Hope you-all can find a way to get the ruling reversed. By congressional action?
Old Bob Yeah, I’m 98 now!

Pat Johns - April 5, 2016

Sad day for America….miss Judge Scalia and his conservative stand..

Jacques P. Michaud - April 5, 2016

The unions have become the same as big government. That is they are more interested in their own agenda then the people they are supposed to be working for. This ruling is only hurting the workers that want to see change for the better and fewer special interests groups in politics.

James Ray - April 5, 2016

Jimmy Ray, I’m with Rebecca on this one. Even the Federal Gov. Union wouldn’t agree with this one. I knew I would miss Judge Scalia.

Cheryl - April 5, 2016

Dinesh D’Souza is right. Our political system is being run by gangster thugs who want their dues.

KingsBattle - April 5, 2016

Yes, it absolutely is….I refuse to accept that we are in a “post” constitutional era. It’s time for “We the People” to stop this progressive “run-a-way” train! We can debate if unions were ever justified but at this point and time, it’s safe to say, that they are ONLY in place to drive a political, liberal agenda that fly’s in the face of our foundational principles as a nation. They are just another component of the “fundamental change”

JL Newell - April 5, 2016

I have been paying an “agency fee” ever since our union went with SEIU and backed Obama. They used my money to support the candidate I voted against. However, I knew this was a union shop going in. I was just so young, I had never really studied about the history of unions and how it would impact me. Most people are just happy to have a job and ignore what is actually happening.

marge - April 6, 2016

This should be against the law.

James Nichol - April 6, 2016

Why should Government employees have a union at all? Don’t they trust their government to do right by them?

Frances Berting - April 6, 2016

It never ceases to amaze and anger me that the government – the Supreme Court no less – can mandate unconstitutional impositions on individuals to benefit unions.

Marcus Griffis - April 7, 2016

Why would the court take up any cases, when they as well as we know it’ll be a 4-4 draw? They like our “representatives?” have now Balls or common sense! There shouldn’t be any Public Unions in the first place. If it wasn’t for public unions the union movement would die a deserved death!

Mardell Quigley - April 7, 2016

Without you how would we know any of this is going on behind our backs. Yes you are right. These people sure like to mess with our constitution. Thanks for being there for us. Giving us a chance to state our case as well. It’s only going to get worse. Itl doesn’t ever give up. Come soon Lord Jesus.

Ray - April 7, 2016

Friedricks was wrong. There is no such right!

C Thompson - April 7, 2016

I worked for years in a union environment. Paying dues was not mandatory, but I received strong recommendations to pay. I didn’t feel s loss of my right to free speech because I could speak at meetings. BUT, the result was that the union negotiated everything to do with salary levels, raises, bonuses, benefits and pension sharing through collective bargaining. Because everyone in the collection gets the same, they negate any incentive to excel, to learn new skills, to take on additional responsibility. There was little or no clear path to advancement or career growth. HR is an administrative bureaucracy at best. Employees are left with only those incentives to excel that come from their own personalities, the teachings of parents, schools and churches. Voluntary dues are an indicator of the value provided by the union and should be by choice, not by mandate.

Gregory Watkins - April 8, 2016

Clearly workers should decide themselves whether or not to join unions and if they join give permission if dues are to be used for political purposes. Anything else is coercion.

Carol Mattick - April 8, 2016

Unions are no longer needed in this country. Until the rank and file who think that the unions care about them wake up to the fact that the unions are just using you to finance the unions political agenda, the soon all workers will benefit. Unions are only interested in getting rich off the rank and file workers.

Mark Tyma - April 8, 2016

Yes it is a blow against free speech. These same teachers unions are supporting a bill in massachusetts to allow transgender males to share locker rooms with young girls in their state. They abuse thier position and are probably using union dues for personal gain. These are the same people that vote for socialist administrations because they don’t want to lose thier positions or power and have to be accountable for actually performing thier duties.

Robert Quesenbury - April 9, 2016

Yes, of course, this adversely impacts the free speech of union members and by implication all the rest of us as well. I know I am stating the obvious when I say that the election in November may well be the last free election we will ever have.

C Glod - April 9, 2016

As a college faculty member I was a union member for many years…I do not deny that there is some rationaile for making members pay toward the benefits that the union provides…BUT I BELIVE THE TRUE ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS BING IGNORED…THE REAL ISSUE IS ALL THE MONEY RECEIVED FROM MEMBERSHIP GOES TO PROMOTING A DISTINCTLY LIBERAL POLITICAL POLICY.

Nancy R. Bertch - April 9, 2016

Each of us need to be free to support which ever position we wish on any issue. The Union position is always a “liberal” one. It is taking one view and pretending that “they” know what is best for all of us. Then “they” say that all the Union members agree with the official Union ideas. We have no choice.

RickyD. - April 11, 2016

I don’t agree with this ruling, but this isn’t a requirement to pay union dues.It is only for collective bargaining which is for contract negotiations. The justices should have realized that regular union dues are collected for things like collective bargaining negotiations among other reasons like political lobbying. God willing Hillary won’t become POTUS.

William Flowers - April 13, 2016

In the case of teachers I can go along with the idea that it goes against free speech because so much has to be politically correct. Come to think of it since all unions contribute to the Democratic Party it is definitely against free speech.

Johnnie Iguess - April 15, 2016

As I drove a truck for a living cross country, I found out that I hated unions. I was not and never have been part of a union. The idea that I would have to pay someone to have a job, infuriates me. I could say more, anout union, I have said enough.

Pat Poitinger - April 20, 2016

I am a retired teacher and the teachers’ union should not make this mandatory. It infringes on the right of the teacher to decide for herself/himself.

Dennis M Fries - April 21, 2016

The workers benefit from the union negotiations and therefore they should help pay for the cost of the negotiating. But not pay for any part of supporting a political idealogy.

Clifford K. Wanebo - April 22, 2016

Yes, a blow to free speech
an unfortunate wedge in the door that may
signal further efforts which undermine
what we have always ” taken for
granted” that we are a free people
public unions offer nothing to the worker
or the employer ( it is an example of a
false economy within the USG )

John Burnett - May 13, 2016

This is very definitely a free-speech issue. No one should be forced to pay a penny to fund the union’s collective bargaining efforts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.