On June 30 the U.S. Supreme Court sent a shock wave through organized labor by agreeing to hear arguments in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, to determine whether public-sector unions could still require workers who opt out of union membership to pay some dues. The suit seeks to overturn a 1977 decision, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which held that unions could charge non-members an “agency shop” fee to cover costs related to representation in collective bargaining.

Conservatives argue that unions are inherently political, and so forcing workers to support them financially violates free speech rights. If the court’s conservative majority overturns the precedent, government workers could opt out of dues payments in droves, severely crippling the financing of public employee unions, a pivotal part of the American labor movement.

Unions argue that non-members should pay a smaller membership fee because they reap the benefits from union representation — everything from high quality health and dental plans to protections against arbitrary terminations. But last year, in ruling narrowly against unions in Harris v. Quinn, the Court indicated its interest in hearing a free speech challenge to overturn the four-decade-old precedent.

The fear of a nationwide right-to-work regime, in which unions can make no claims on any workers despite representing their interests, is not far-fetched. Even the liberal wing of the court has recently ruled against labor. And despite unions’ importance for workers’ rights, it is often difficult to convince government employees to pay their dues. Still, in some states with right-to-work laws, unions have been successful in retaining membership. In fact, recent data show that right-to-work legislation in Indiana hasn’t caused a change for unions there.

But some labor activists are bracing for a deathblow to the public sector unions, especially among lower-paid workers who in tight economic times are looking for any way to increase their take-home pay.

“The elephant in the room is that plenty of represented workers aren’t enthusiastic about their unions,” Labor Notes staff writer, Samantha Winslow, observed earlier this month. “Some see them as the contract, pure and simple — an insurance policy at best, not something that gets your blood moving. Others have the opposite gripe — that their unions focus on advocating for causes far removed from members’ day-to-day work.”

In other words, even some labor advocates have admitted that the automatic-dues payment system for all workers has made unions complacent, and labor’s enemies are taking advantage of that.

A right-to-work regime could mean far less money for government workers’ unions, which means less representation, fewer lawyers and fewer member services. For those of us who work in the public-sector labor movement (I edit a magazine published by a government union), careers hang in the balance. Dramatic reductions in operational resources will most certainly end up in staff reductions.