The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Mark Janus v AFSCME on 2/26/18. This case is similar to Friedrichs v California Teachers Association, heard in 2017. The Friedrichs case ended in a 4-4 tie vote at the US Supreme Court (Justice Scalia passed away prior to rendering a decision).
The core issue in both cases is whether an employee in a "union-shop" can choose not to join the union and pay nothing towards union activities that benefit them such as negotiations for wages, hours, pensions, working conditions etc. If the Supreme Court rules against AFSCME, then union dues may become optional. This is quite different than the "Agency Fee" structure now in place in Connecticut. Currently, in over 20 states, including Connecticut, those who choose not to support political activities of the union are eligible to pay a slightly reduced "Agency Fee" rather than "dues". At A&R, the cost reduction is about 17%.
The concept of "Agency Fees" was established by the US Supreme Court in 1977 in Abood v Detroit Board of Ed. The agency fee structure allows those who object to the union's political activites to avoid financially supporting those political activities. Agency fee payers pay the slightly reduced amount which covers all other union activities such as negotationing over wages, hours, working conditions, pensions, healthcare, and contract administration. In this regard, it has been a fair arrangement. All members eiher pay the dues, or the reduced agency fee. It is fair because, regardless of politiical activites, it still costs money for the unoin to to oversee all aspects of the contract. Since all members benefit from the contract, all members should pay for contract oversight. Approximatley 99% of A&R are dues payers, while about 1% choose to be agency fee payers.
The impact of overruling Abood is essentially elimination of unionization; not by decree, but by undermining funding for unions. The Janus case sets out to create a "free-loader" population which chooses not to pay anything - not dues, not agency fees, nothing - yet this "free-loader" population may still have the protections of the union. But the union, without dues to support it, will not have resources available to protect or advance employee protections. The objective of those opposed to unions is to starve unions of money and therefore widdle away our ability to have a viable union.
The Supreme Court's decision on the Janus v AFSCME is most likely due in May 2018.