Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to New York’s “Taylor Law,” which gives unions monopoly bargaining privileges in the public sector. At best, the Court missed an opportunity to protect the First Amendment; at worst, the Court endorsed Marxism.
We are Jewish academics who have been forced to accept the “exclusive representation” of unions that we consider anti-Semitic. One of us, a professor at the City University of New York, brought the eponymous challenge, Goldstein v. Professional Staff Congress/CUNY. The other, a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, similarly filed federal charges against the MIT Graduate Student Union. Both unions engage in the anti-Israel “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions” movement (BDS), which we vehemently oppose.
At CUNY, the faculty union in 2021 condemned Israel “dating back to its establishment as a settler colonial state in 1948.” At MIT, the graduate student union in 2024 called for “an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza,” without mentioning Hamas or the hostages they still hold. The resolutions compare Israel to apartheid South Africa — ironic, given that the unions treat objectors like us as second-class citizens without voting privileges.
One need not share our opposition to BDS to see that these unions cannot represent us at the bargaining table. Yet that is exactly what is happening. Had the Supreme Court taken up Goldstein, the Justices could have struck down the Taylor Law on the grounds that it violates employees’ freedom of speech and association. Instead, the Court let stand the Second Circuit’s ruling that “Designating PSC as Plaintiffs’ exclusive bargaining representative does not impermissibly burden Plaintiffs’ ability to speak with, associate with, or not associate with whom they please, including CUNY and PSC.” In other words, it is permissible to subordinate individual rights to collective interests — classic Marxism.
The Supreme Court knew this when it declined to take the case. An amicus brief supporting the petitioners, filed by the Upper Midwest Law Center and the Manhattan Institute, cites the MIT Graduate Student Union as an example of the problem: “Jewish students are being compelled to associate with and implicitly endorse these views despite their most sincere religious beliefs, so they filed discrimination charges with the EEOC.”
The outcome of those charges was that religious students at private universities could divert their union dues to charity, but they would still be subject to exclusive representation. Public employees, including CUNY professors, already have the right to opt out of union dues under Janus v. AFSCME, but they too remain subject to exclusive representation by a union they abhor. While the Supreme Court recognized in Janus that “Designating a union as the employees’ exclusive representative substantially restricts the rights of individual employees,” the validity of exclusive representation was not squarely before the Court — until Goldstein, which the Justices declined to hear.
The result has been predictable. Ten days after the Court denied the petition, the CUNY faculty union adopted a resolution “expressing its support for complete disinvestment from Israel,” further resolving to “divest its own funds from any investment vehicle that includes in its portfolio stocks and bonds of Israeli companies and Israeli government bonds.” In response, a Jewish civil rights organization filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights, arguing that the union “has abandoned their sacrosanct Duty of Fair Representation.” Under Janus, “That duty is a necessary concomitant of the authority that a union seeks when it chooses to serve as the exclusive representative of all the employees in a unit.”
There is another way. New York and other states could amend their labor laws to give employees the right to opt out of union representation. Unions could thus continue to engage in BDS, but not on behalf of those who oppose it. Additionally, the states could adopt laws that give private employees the right to work without paying compulsory dues to unions that they oppose. Twenty-six states already have such a law, which Congress could extend to all fifty states by passing the National Right to Work Act.
The Soviet Union put up a physical wall to keep people in; New York’s labor law puts up a legal one. If unions are as good as they claim to be, they should not need to compel representation or financial support. To borrow a phrase: Governor Hochul, tear down this wall!
* * *
Avraham Goldstein is an assistant professor of mathematics at the City University of New York.
Will Sussman is a collegiate associate at the Manhattan Institute and a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
[#item_full_content]
[[{“value”:”
Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to New York’s “Taylor Law,” which gives unions monopoly bargaining privileges in the public sector. At best, the Court missed an opportunity to protect the First Amendment; at worst, the Court endorsed Marxism.
We are Jewish academics who have been forced to accept the “exclusive representation” of unions that we consider anti-Semitic. One of us, a professor at the City University of New York, brought the eponymous challenge, Goldstein v. Professional Staff Congress/CUNY. The other, a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, similarly filed federal charges against the MIT Graduate Student Union. Both unions engage in the anti-Israel “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions” movement (BDS), which we vehemently oppose.
At CUNY, the faculty union in 2021 condemned Israel “dating back to its establishment as a settler colonial state in 1948.” At MIT, the graduate student union in 2024 called for “an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza,” without mentioning Hamas or the hostages they still hold. The resolutions compare Israel to apartheid South Africa — ironic, given that the unions treat objectors like us as second-class citizens without voting privileges.
One need not share our opposition to BDS to see that these unions cannot represent us at the bargaining table. Yet that is exactly what is happening. Had the Supreme Court taken up Goldstein, the Justices could have struck down the Taylor Law on the grounds that it violates employees’ freedom of speech and association. Instead, the Court let stand the Second Circuit’s ruling that “Designating PSC as Plaintiffs’ exclusive bargaining representative does not impermissibly burden Plaintiffs’ ability to speak with, associate with, or not associate with whom they please, including CUNY and PSC.” In other words, it is permissible to subordinate individual rights to collective interests — classic Marxism.
The Supreme Court knew this when it declined to take the case. An amicus brief supporting the petitioners, filed by the Upper Midwest Law Center and the Manhattan Institute, cites the MIT Graduate Student Union as an example of the problem: “Jewish students are being compelled to associate with and implicitly endorse these views despite their most sincere religious beliefs, so they filed discrimination charges with the EEOC.”
The outcome of those charges was that religious students at private universities could divert their union dues to charity, but they would still be subject to exclusive representation. Public employees, including CUNY professors, already have the right to opt out of union dues under Janus v. AFSCME, but they too remain subject to exclusive representation by a union they abhor. While the Supreme Court recognized in Janus that “Designating a union as the employees’ exclusive representative substantially restricts the rights of individual employees,” the validity of exclusive representation was not squarely before the Court — until Goldstein, which the Justices declined to hear.
The result has been predictable. Ten days after the Court denied the petition, the CUNY faculty union adopted a resolution “expressing its support for complete disinvestment from Israel,” further resolving to “divest its own funds from any investment vehicle that includes in its portfolio stocks and bonds of Israeli companies and Israeli government bonds.” In response, a Jewish civil rights organization filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights, arguing that the union “has abandoned their sacrosanct Duty of Fair Representation.” Under Janus, “That duty is a necessary concomitant of the authority that a union seeks when it chooses to serve as the exclusive representative of all the employees in a unit.”
There is another way. New York and other states could amend their labor laws to give employees the right to opt out of union representation. Unions could thus continue to engage in BDS, but not on behalf of those who oppose it. Additionally, the states could adopt laws that give private employees the right to work without paying compulsory dues to unions that they oppose. Twenty-six states already have such a law, which Congress could extend to all fifty states by passing the National Right to Work Act.
The Soviet Union put up a physical wall to keep people in; New York’s labor law puts up a legal one. If unions are as good as they claim to be, they should not need to compel representation or financial support. To borrow a phrase: Governor Hochul, tear down this wall!
* * *
Avraham Goldstein is an assistant professor of mathematics at the City University of New York.
Will Sussman is a collegiate associate at the Manhattan Institute and a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
“}]]
