Collective Bargaining: The Case of Public Sector Unions and Agency Fees

This article discusses the case of public sector unions and agency fees, focusing on the ability of public sector unions to collect agency fees to fund their operations and provide services to members who benefit from the collective bargaining services they provide. The case involves the public sector unions, which face a case with the municipal employees, who are private sector members in this case. The issue was first presented to the court, and the two groups finally settled on arbitration as the best method of finding a solution to the problem in question. Arguments were allowed, and a decision arrived at, which called for the need for the public sector unions to only charge percentage to all members and avoid the over appropriation of service fees.

1
Collective Bargaining
Student’s Name
Institution
Date

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING 2
ARBITRATION CASE
Article Title
Judgment Day for Public Unions, The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could
deal a serious blow to American organized labor (The Atlantic, 2017).
Journal Name and Date
The Atlantic: Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees:
September 28th
Key Points
The case involves the public sector unions, which face a case with the municipal employees, who
are private sector members in this case (The Atlantic, 2017). The case is focused on the ability of
public sector unions, to collect what is commonly referred to as agency fees, to fund their
operations, and provide services to members who benefit from the collective bargaining services
they provide.
Summary
The issue was first presented to the court, and the two groups finally settled on arbitration as the
best method of finding a solution to the problem in question (The Atlantic, 2017). Arguments
were allowed, and a decision arrived at, which called for the need for the public sector unions to
only charge percentage to all members and avoid the over appropriation of service fees. In most
cases, conflicting parties can rely on the arbitration mechanism in dispute resolution processes.
There is a need to therefore, consider the different ways trough which solutions can be generated,
and out of court proceedings are considered more effective.
Personal Evaluation

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING 3
A lot of states allow the public unions to collect service fees from their members. However, a
specific percentage has to be set up, to ensure that no group exploits the other and that the terms
of the agreement are adhered to (Colvin, 2013). The arbitration process upheld the system in the
case, and unions were permitted to continue collecting fees, provided they do not violate the
constitution and also, provided that the fees are used to completely cover the costs related to
collective bargaining works (Colvin, 2013). Based on my evaluation, the arbitration process is
bound to be successful, especially where both parties agree to settle their disputes out of court, to
reach a consensus where the needs of either party are equally favored. Based on the events
surrounding the case between the public sector union and the members, each party needs to enter
into an agreement regarding what works well for each. This way, it will be easier to implement
policies, and faith will be eventually restored among the members. Arbitration, just like any
other conflict resolution strategy, works best for such cases, and is the best in settling matters,
especially those which a consensus can be easily arrived at.

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING 4
References
The Atlantic. (2017). Judgment Day for Public Unions, The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to
hear a case that could deal a serious blow to American organized labor. Retrieved 28th
September from https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/09/judgment-day-for-
public-unions/541449/
Colvin, A. J. (2013). Institutional pressures, human resource strategies, and the rise of nonunion
dispute resolution procedures. ILR Review, 56(3), 375-392.