A Moral Critique: The Supreme Court's Decision in Janus v. AFSCME

This essay critically examines the Supreme Court's ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, arguing that the decision was morally incorrect due to its detrimental impact on public-sector unions and collective bargaining rights. The author contends that the ruling, which eliminates mandatory “agency fees,” prioritizes individual liberty at the expense of the common good, potentially destabilizing collective bargaining and undermining justice for the majority of employees. The essay anticipates and addresses the objection that employees should not be forced to pay agency fees, ultimately concluding that the court's decision undermines the collective act in pursuit of justice. Desklib offers a wide array of resources, including similar essays and past papers, to aid students in their academic pursuits.

Last Name 1
Name
Course
Instructor
Date
Janus v. AFSCME
The ruling by the Supreme Court on the Janus v. AFSCME was morally incorrect because
the decision by the judges was a massive rage to the public-sector union. The judges ruled that
workers do not have to pay “agency fees” to unions to cater to the interest of employees in
unions. Accordingly, the verdict delivered in a 5-4 vote can be the most significant one to impact
collective bargaining rights in the US. The ruling was morally incorrect because it will curtail the
common good for the majority of the workers in the United States since the “agency fees” were
designed to cater for collective bargaining costs like contract negotiations that could profit both
unions along with non-union workers (Liptak 1).
Therefore, by destabilizing collective bargaining in the public sector, the case
dangerously prioritizes individual liberty at the expense of the common good of employees that
means its bargaining act will be violated. The decision by the Supreme Court clearly fashions a
dangerous standard of dissolving the likelihood for the collective act in pursuit of justice in the
name of individual freedom (Sadle 1). The anticipated objection to the decision was that the
employees should be allowed to pay agency fees stop the interest of the workers in unions as it
morally right. This anticipation will function because it will ensure that the employees’ does

Last Name 2
benefit union officials by paying agency fees. Therefore, the court judgment was morally
incorrect as the decision of the court is meant to undermine justice for the majority of the
employees in the US.

Last Name 3
Work Cited
Liptak, Adam. Supreme Court Ruling Delivers a Sharp Blow to Labor Unions. The New York
Times. 2018 Print. Retrieved February 17, 2019 from
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/27/us/politics/supreme-court-unions-organized-
labor.html.
Shadle, Mathew. Catholic Social Ethics and Janus v. AFSCME: Balancing Individual Freedom
and the Common Good. Political Theology. 2018 Print. Retrieved February 17, 2019
from https://politicaltheology.com/catholic-social-ethics-and-janus-v-afscme-
balancing- individual-freedom-and-the-common-good/.