Abood (1977):  This case deals with union fees, but Dave says it
is very important because it applies to analogous situations (bar
fees, student fees, etc.).  In this case, there was a Michigan
statute which permitted an agency shop arrangement whereby nonunion
employees paid service charges in lieu of union fees.  A little
background helps.  An “agency shop” is related to exclusive
representation.  Exclusive representation means that only one union
can represent the work force in a bargaining “unit.”  For ex., one
union can represent the Austin Ind. School District teachers.  An
election for a union is a “winner take all” election, meaning that if
the union gets a majority of votes, it wins the entire election.
Thus, the minority voters lose out and sometimes do not want to
support the union they did not vote for.  A union has great
responsibilities that cost a lot of money.  In return for
representing a “unit,” the union must represent everyone in the
union, even those who did not support and did not join that union.
Nevertheless, the unions who did not join the union must still pay
union due.  Why?  Because the union represents them, and if an
employee did not join a union and consequently would not have to pay
union dues, he would get a free ride since he would benefit from the
union’s representation.  In this case, Ps, who did not belong to the
union but had to pay service fees under the Michigan statute, made
two arguments based on the First Am.  First, Ps claimed that it was a
violation of their First Am. right to freely associate to pay service
fees that were used for the costs of maintaining a collective
bargaining system.  Second, Ps claimed that it was a violation of
their First Am. right to freely associate to pay fees for union
various social activities (i.e., political, economic, religious,
etc.) which they did not ideologically agree with.  Does the Michigan
statute violate the First Am. rights of employees who object to
various activities financed by compulsory service fees?