This week, the supreme court delivered its long-anticipated decision in Janus v AFSCME, banning a major source of funding for public sector unions, called agency fees. For the US labor movement, it’s not quite a death blow, but it’s a crippling one. Because public sector unions now account for the majority of US union members, and these fees pay for unions’ day-to-day functions, denying them this revenue source starves them and hastens their demise, which was precisely what the conservative foundations backing the case always intended.

Supreme court strikes blow against unions with 'fair share' ruling Read more

That the case against agency fees is predicated on a lie – to protect workers from something that does not exist, “compulsory union membership” – is beside the point. This is pure power politics. Republicans control all three branches of government and engineered a majority on the court. Corporations and the foundations they bankroll can sustain long legal crusades to tilt the playing field ever in their favor. The question for unions, which have always been on the losing end of that field, is how to survive.

One model for unions in the post-Janus era could be another modestly financed and increasingly unpopular membership organization: the National Rifle Association. Though a villain in the eyes of labor’s allies on the left, the gun lobby’s staying power in American politics should be an inspiration to activist groups across the spectrum.

Sign up to receive the latest US opinion pieces every weekday

What could unions learn from the NRA? For one thing, you can have clout without money. To be sure, the NRA throws money around, but not as much as you think. Last year it spent $4m on lobbying – about the same amount as the dairy farmers’ lobby, and just over a tenth of what the National Association of Realtors spent. The Chamber of Commerce, the country’s main business lobby, spent $100m more than the NRA did. For presidential elections, the NRA spends more: $30m on Trump, more than twice what it spent on Romney in 2012, but less than the top Super Pacs and two individuals, the conservative casino magnate Sheldon Adelson and liberal hedge fund manager Tom Steyer. In 2017, the NRA spent just over $1m on federal races, compared to the $12.7m spent by Comcast.

To even call the NRA a “gun lobby” obscures the real source of its power: its members. The respective opponents of unions and the NRA both focus disproportionately on their money. Gun control advocates organize boycotts to “defund the NRA”; unions still get called “big labor” with a straight face by business lobbies that outspend them 10 to 1. This kind of economic reductionism misses the real added value membership organizations offer to the parties they favor: boots on the ground for elections.



NRA members are not legion, and their views on gun control are increasingly out of touch with that of the median US voter. But they are motivated, and form a loyal army the NRA can call out in general elections and, crucially for issue discipline, primaries. And while it is today an effectively Republican-only organization, its ratings of politicians on gun issues – and threats to take out anyone with less than an A rating – keeps Republicans firmly in line. This explains why lawmakers in Florida, where the Parkland high school massacre occurred, are still scared to cross the NRA, despite the fact that the group has not made a contribution to a single member of the state legislature in a decade.

This degree of loyalty is only possible by creating buy-in among their members. As the Brooklyn College political scientist Anna On Ya Law notes, people join the NRA for the same reasons they join other organizations: they believe in the cause, they seek camaraderie, and “they get stuff they wouldn’t get without membership” – things like gun safety training, gun insurance and discounts for other businesses. Their opponents on the gun control side can rally around a common cause, but can’t offer the other two benefits, which is why they’re better at mobilizing donors than members.

The NRA has evolved into a de facto club for a broader demographic that does not otherwise have a legitimate one to join: rural white men

Reinforcing member identity can be ugly. Individuals have overlapping and competing loyalties. Many union members are also gun owners, just as many are also evangelical, or immigrants, or gay, or any combination of identities. Through its constant crisis rhetoric, the NRA is especially good at making its members think of themselves as NRA members first and everything else second. In a country where a quarter of Americans own guns, and most guns are owned by just 3% of the population, this is not a recipe for majority status. But the NRA has evolved into a de facto club for a broader demographic that does not otherwise have a legitimate one to join: rural white men. NRA ads today have little do with guns at all, such as the one of an angry guy smashing his TV with a sledgehammer. But they speak to their base’s aggrieved sense of lost status. In-group identity is reinforced by having an enemy. It doesn’t have to be gun control. Any perceived threat to the group – the media, late-night comedians, “socialism” – will do.

Unions, too, aspire to speak on behalf of a broader class – in another era, they even used that word to describe it. There is no fundamental reason why unions or other activist groups – even those lacking deep pockets – can’t mobilize members similarly, and wield that threat to keep politicians in line. It’s a universal formula: cultivate loyalty through membership perks, companionship and a sense of shared existential threat – which for today’s unions is very real. Crucially, be willing to act as a disciplining force against your allies. Set red lines: card check, universal healthcare, paid parental leave. Target Democrats who cross them in primaries. Janus is a rude wake-up call, not only for unions but for Democrats who have grown used to treating them as an ATM. An increasingly desperate labor movement can be dangerous to friends and foes alike, because it has little to lose.