Groucho Marx once famously remarked, “I don’t want to belong to any club that will accept people like me as a member.”

If Groucho had wanted to become a public employee in California, he wouldn’t have had any choice. In the Friedrichs case before the U.S. Supreme Court, public-sector unions are taking a decidedly anti-Marxian position: They want to continue forcing people to belong to their unions who don’t want to be members.

As is often the case in politics these days: It’s all about the money.

Technically, those such as Rebecca Friedrichs, who don’t want to be a member in a California teachers union, don’t have to join. Her reasoning is she doesn’t support many of the political goals of the union and does not want to be forced to finance its political activities. But she has to pay “agency fees,” which are essentially the same – and at the same level as – union dues. The argument of the unions is that collective bargaining benefits nonmembers, who should not get a “free ride” and who should have to pay their fair share.

There a number of problems with this argument. First, it seems that agency fees cover a lot more than the direct costs of collective bargaining, including union overhead and administrative costs, which are a prerequisite for a union’s political activities.

Having been involved with multiple rounds of collective bargaining with public-sector unions, I can say that a union needs one or two good lawyers as well as direction from its leadership. There is no way that the expenses related to collective bargaining could even approach the amount of money being raised through annual dues and agency fees.

Another problem with forcing nonmembers to pay agency fees – with the added whammy that they are equivalent to the union dues paid by some members – is that these employees do not receive the same benefits as members. As is made clear on the website of one California teachers union:

“Agency fee payers are not a member of the local, cannot hold office or vote in local elections. They forfeit access to union representation – your Weingarten rights and legal representation. They do not receive the valuable membership benefits of Disability Insurance, low rates and substantial discounts on home loans, personal, life and car insurance, merchandise, travel, legal and credit union services and discounted LA Fitness gym memberships.”

Indeed, unions that want to attract members can and should make the benefits of union membership clear to potential members. Forcing all employees to contribute to the union treasury simply removes a level of responsibility for union bosses to actually retain members by choice rather than by force. Ironically, one of the main arguments unions are using against Friedrichs is that freeing nonmembers from agency fees will result in a “weakening” of the union.

Providing value

However, wouldn’t it also mean that the unions would actually themselves be forced to provide members and potential members with the kind of value that induces membership? The union bosses would no longer be able to take agency fees for granted and might have to adjust some of their political positions to reflect those who are actually footing the bill.

Wouldn’t that actually strengthen the union?

In recent oral arguments, the Supreme Court’s liberals have suggested that the legal principle of stare decisis outweighs the unfairness of Friedrichs being forced to financially support political positions with which she disagrees through the union. Stare decisis is Latin for “standing by a decision,” and in this instance refers to Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, a 40-year old case that allowed for unions to collect fees from nonmembers in connection with collective bargaining.

“Stare” may translate to “standing by” in Latin, but in Polish the word means “old,” and in this case that definition seems more appropriate; relying on an old and stale decision looks like the last refuge of judges who can’t find any good arguments to uphold bad and unfair policy.

The case is clearly one of “compelled speech” because many issues within collective bargaining are inherently political, such as matters related to employee discipline, salaries and benefits, etc. There is an inherent politicization – and problem – when public-sector unions are involved in electing their own “bosses” (something absent from private-sector unions). Forcing Friedrichs to finance the union is no more appropriate than, say, forcing everyone who purchases a gun to join the National Rifle Association, or at least pay a fee that would go to support the NRA’s “efforts” on behalf of gun owners.

The Supreme Court should overturn Abood, move away from compelled union membership and allow employees the personal freedom to decide whether they join – or finance – a union. In a Marxian twist, there are quite simply those who might not want to belong to any club that forces them to be a member.

John Mirisch has served on the Beverly Hills City Council since 2009 and is currently vice mayor.