If workers aren't going to pay dues they don't representation. Just that simple.

I think the state being Illinois had something to do with it, too. It obviously is an attack against unions which we all know are the mainstay of Democratic Party strength. Justice Ginsberg is correct. This opens up the idea that corporations have rights that human beings have. Our democracy is rather wayward right now. It is anti-person and pro-corporation. The rise of the Plutocrats.

But, if employees are not members of the union they should never receive representation at the bargaining table and in their paychecks or otherwise. I don't see this hostile court decision effecting unions. People will quickly learn members are receiving raises and benefits they don't. There can literally be two classes of employees. Those with union representation and those without.

June 30, 2014
By Robert Barnes

The Supreme Court (click here) dealt a defeat to public employee unions Monday, saying that thousands of home health-care workers are not the kind of state employees who can be required to pay fees to cover a union’s cost of collective bargaining.

The court split 5 to 4 along ideological grounds in a case from Illinois. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the state’s requirement of dues from those workers, who technically are employed under a government program for the persons they assist, violates workers’ rights to free speech.

To do otherwise, he wrote for the court’s other conservatives, “we would approve an unprecedented violation of the bedrock principle that, except perhaps in the rarest of circumstances, no person in this country may be compelled to subsidize speech by a third party that he or she does not wish to support.”...