(WASHINGTON, D.C.) - Late June became a time of terror for anyone on the Left.  These early days of summer are traditionally the last of the Supreme Court’s term and at a time when the Court is dominated by Republican appointees - Democrats, Liberals, and Leftists alike often spend the last week of June dreading what the Court is about to do to health care, Workers and the rights of women or racial minorities.

This June, however, was different.

With the Court down a Justice for most of the last year, its members avoided most politically charged cases that were likely to produce a 4-4 split.

Compared to past terms, the last year at the Supreme Court was relatively boring.

The term’s biggest decisions - an erosion of the separation of church and state and a lamentable decision to temporarily reinstate parts of Trump’s Muslim ban - both were decided after Republicans placed someone in the Court’s final seat.

Remember how good this boredom feels, because it won’t last.

With Neil Gorsuch now occupying the seat that Republicans held open more than a year until Donald Trump could fill it, the next term will not be boring at all.

And the Court’s Republican majority has a familiar target in its sights: the American Worker.

Last year, many of America’s Unions had a near-death experience.

In January of 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Friedrichs vs. California Teachers Association, a case that sought to starve Public Sector Unions of the money they need to operate.

The arguments before the Justices seemed to herald an impending disaster for Inions, with Anthony Kennedy - the closest thing to a swing vote - appearing visibly angered by some of the Pro-Union arguments presented to the Court.

After the arguments phase, there was little doubt that Organized Labor would lose in a 5-4 decision that threatened many Unions’ ability to operate.

Then Antonin Scalia died.

Without Scalia to cast the fifth vote against Labor, the Justices split 4-4 in Friedrichs and the threat to Unions seemed to have passed.

Now, however, Gorsuch occupies Scalia’s old seat.

And Gorsuch is, if anything, well to Scalia’s right.

The Supreme Court’s war on Unions, in other words, will now resume.

And there’s already a case in the works that will allow the Court’s Republican majority to pick up where it left off in early 2016.

Earlier this month, lawyers led by the Anti-Union National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation asked the Court to hear Janus vs. AFSCME, a case that is nearly identical to Friedrichs.

Both challenge what are sometimes called “Agency Fees” or “Fair Share Fees.”

And Janus, like Friedrichs, is an existential threat to many Public Sector Unions.

By law, Unions must bargain on behalf of every Worker within a Bargaining Unit, regardless of whether each individual Worker joins the Union.

That creates a Free-Rider problem, because each individual Worker gets to keep the higher wages and increased benefits that normally accompany Unionization without having to pay Membership Dues.

Collective Bargaining, moreover, is an expensive process that can require a team of lawyers and financial experts.  

Hiring good negotiators costs money.

If too many Workers refuse to pay Union Dues, Unions can find themselves without enough funds to operate.

To solve this Free-Rider problem, Union Contracts often contain a provision requiring Non-Union Members to reimburse the Unions for their fair share of the costs of Collective Bargaining.

These are called “Agency Fees.”

That means that just as everyone gets to share the benefits of Unionization, everyone also pays their share of the costs.

Many State Legislatures, in an effort to weaken Unions, ban these Agency Fees - that’s what so-called Right-To-Work (for less) Laws do.

As the Economic Policy Institute’s (EPI) Elise Gould and Will Kimball explain, such a law is “associated with $1,558 lower annual wages for a typical full-time, full-year Worker.”

Janus asks the Supreme Court to impose a Right-To-Work (for less) regime on all Public Sector Unions and with Gorsuch now occupying a seat on the Court, it is overwhelmingly likely that the Court will side with the Anti-Union attorneys behind Janus.

Should these lawyers prevail, the effects will be threefold.

To Read The Rest Of This Labor News Story, Go To: www.thenation.com/article/springtime-for-union-busting/