The Sly Economics of Government Union Activism

Originally posted on The Sly Economics of Government Union Activism | RealClearPennsylvania

By Matthew Hayward

September 11, 2023

As Labor Day loomed, the airwaves filled with pro-union sentiment, celebrating the virtues of solidarity. The union advocates didn’t have much to say, though, about the underhanded way government unions force members who want workplace representation to also pay for the unions’ social activism.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME fundamentally altered the landscape of union membership for public employees. The decision upended the Abood v. Detroit Board of Education framework, which had allowed public employees to opt out of the portion of their union dues earmarked for explicit political activities while still mandating payment for other union advocacy efforts. The Abood framework, in other words, permitted public employees to only pay dues for workplace representational activities.

Janus, however, changed the rules. It declared that all government union activities are political, and therefore subject to First Amendment considerations. So, government unions responded by forcing public employees into the stark choice of paying no dues, or paying for both representational activities and non-representational activism. This prompts a question: Why don’t unions offer a dues structure that allows members to pay solely for workplace representation?

This all-or-nothing approach casts doubt on union transparency and the actual value that members receive for their dues payments. Many public employees appreciate workplace representation but are unwilling to overpay or contribute to political causes that conflict with their beliefs. This underscores the need for unions to adopt a transparent and fair dues structure.

Historically, unions have engaged in practices that muddy the waters of their financial dealings. They claim that union dues are not used for political purposes – a patently false assertion. Moreover, by soliciting donations for their political action committees (PACs), unions deflect questions about how general dues also get spent on partisan politics. These practices demand greater scrutiny and reform.

Unions often argue for the right to charge even nonmembers an “agency fee,” justifying this by stating that they are legally required to represent every worker in the bargaining unit. This argument sidesteps the fact that unions themselves have lobbied for this arrangement. They have fought for the right of exclusive representation, which grants them the sole authority to speak for all employees in a given workplace, whether those employees are union members or not. In essence, unions are victims of their own policy; they’ve created a system where they have a monopoly on workers’ voices.

When presented with the option to relinquish this exclusive representation, thereby freeing themselves from the obligation to represent nonmembers, unions invariably refuse. This reveals a glaring contradiction in their position. On one hand, they lament the “free riders” who benefit from union representation without paying dues. On the other, they zealously guard their monopoly over the public workplace, wanting to represent everyone in a bargaining unit, whether a member or not.

The issue transcends mere percentages and numbers; it’s a matter of trust, transparency, and financial autonomy. Unions must reevaluate their approach to membership and adapt to the new legal landscape. The question: Will unions serve their members and charge them accordingly, or maintain their own political agendas by overcharging?

Matthew Hayward is the National Outreach Director at the Freedom Foundation

When Government Demands Papers We Refuse

By Matthew Hayward 9/19/2025 The Supreme Court just paused a lower court order that had limited federal immigration stops in Los Angeles. That stay lets federal agents resume roving patrols and interior operations that critics say rely on appearance, language, job, or neighborhood to pick people for questioning. This matters because it normalizes a posture of suspicion. Checkpoints miles inland and roving patrols turn movement inside the country into a condition to be earned rather than a freedom to be enjoyed. The government already claims expanded authority inside the 100-mile border zone. That claim, plus an open green light for stops based on appearance, is a recipe for arbitrary enforcement. Philosophy of resistance John Locke told us that the consent of the governed is the foundation of legitimate power. When rulers invade life, liberty, or property, or when they become arbitrary disposers of people’s lives and fortunes, the social compact is dissolve...

The National Guard Was Never Meant to Be a Federal Tool

By Matthew Hayward 7/13/2025 Let me say this clearly: the National Guard was created to defend the states, not to enforce the will of the federal government. It was meant to serve as a local militia—an armed extension of the people under the control of the state. The highest authority a Guard member was ever supposed to answer to is their elected governor, not a bureaucrat in Washington, not a federal agency, and certainly not a sitting president weaponizing military force on domestic soil. Yes, I know the laws have changed. I know the Montgomery Amendment, the National Defense Act, and the Supreme Court's decision in Perpich v. DoD rewrote the rules. But legal doesn’t mean constitutional. Gradualism doesn’t legitimize usurpation. You don’t get to trample foundational principles and call it progress. What’s happening now—federalizing state forces to deploy them in cities without gubernatorial consent—is blasphemous. It's an insult to the very spirit of the Constitution. The ...

Reality Is Rigged and You Can Hack It

By Matthew Hayward 7/29/2025 Manifesting Reality: How the Matrix, Quantum Entanglement, and Consciousness Intertwine Look, science fiction and science fact have been flirting for decades. But lately, the line between the two is starting to disappear. The idea that we’re living in a simulated reality isn’t just a late-night stoner theory anymore. It’s a framework, a lens to view those weird, unexplained moments that leave you thinking, "What the hell just happened?" Quantum entanglement, synchronicity, manifestation… they all start to make a lot more sense when you stop pretending reality is some rigid, mechanical machine. It’s not. It’s code. And if you’re paying attention, you might just figure out how to rewrite it. NPCs vs Manifestors: Who’s Really Running Things? Picture the world like a massive open-world video game. Some people are just running the default programming. They go to work, follow the script, consume what they’re told, and never ask questions. NPCs. Then the...

Search This Blog