Despite fears that a U.S. Supreme Court ruling would trigger a mass exodus of members from government unions, most of San Jose’s public employee unions remain strong 18 months later.

The June 2018 Supreme Court decision — Janus vs. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees — was expected to deal a major financial blow to unions representing government workers. The ruling not only stated that public unions could no longer require non-union member employees to pay dues to cover their share of collective bargaining costs, but also enabled government employees who quit their union to reap the benefits of union representation without having to pay for them.

Government union leaders across the country feared that their members would leave in droves at the temptation of an added bonus to their paycheck if they no longer had to pay union dues. But those concerns have mostly proved unwarranted.

Mirroring a trend nationwide, membership in unions representing San Jose government employees has mostly remained stagnant since the decision.

The local chapters of the International Association of Fire Fighters, the Association of Engineers and Architects and City Association of Management Personnel maintain nearly the same number of members today as they did the month before the Janus decision, according to city data on employees who voluntarily pay dues out of their paycheck each month.

The Police Officer’s Association representing San Jose officers hasn’t lost a single member and instead has seen about a 5 percent increase in membership since the Janus decision, according to the data and Tom Saggau, spokesperson for the Police Officers Association.

“It’s pretty remarkable from a perspective of what that ruling said and what has happened to some of our brother and sister unions,” Saggau said in a recent interview.

But not all San Jose public unions have been as fortunate. The city’s local chapter of Municipal Employees’ Federation — representing nearly 3,300 full and part-time employees across various city departments including librarians, code enforcement inspectors, public safety dispatchers and planners — has lost about a quarter of its members since Janus, according to the city’s data.

According to MEF union leaders, the drop reflects other factors aside from the Janus decision, including seasonal vacancies, quick turnover of part-time employees and overall, the region’s escalating cost of living that discourages employees from wanting to dole out any of their earnings.

“When you dangle the ruling of Janus vs. AFSCME in front of people, it’s unfortunate because it undermines us,” said Ben Martinez, an active member of MEF and a library assistant at the city. “But living in Silicon Valley specifically, I think it’s bigger than that.

“When people are living out of their cars and such, they have to try and account for every penny, being a member of something is a thing you might have to pass over.”

In particular, Martinez said the union has struggled to explain to new and younger part-time employees how collecting decades-worth of membership dues have allowed the union to guarantee the wages and benefits that employees currently receive by elevating their platform through lobbying and campaign efforts.

As a result of losing thousands of dollars in dues over the past year, MEF union leaders are currently considering increasing dues for the first time in years to make up for the lost revenue.

Since the Janus decision, conservative organizations have started campaigns to inform union members about their new rights and filed lawsuits when they felt a union was blocking a person’s right to leave. In California, the nonprofit California Policy Center has filed nearly two dozen suits against public unions for allegedly violating workers’ First Amendment rights by restricting when they can leave the labor organization and stop paying dues.

On the first day of the academy for San Jose officers, union representatives give an orientation about the union and its benefits. They don’t discuss the Janus decision, but they do explain that a member can opt-in or opt-out of paying the dues, according to Saggau, the union’s spokesperson.

Will Swaim, president of the California Policy Center, said tactics like those used by the police union fail to thoroughly explain the new rights to workers.

“Most government workers in California, simply do not understand or have not heard about this decision a year and a half in,” Swaim said. “And That’s not by accident. That’s because government unions and their political allies have such a tremendous job of building a legal barricade that is designed to impede the flow of information about a worker’s rights.”

Saggua, however, defends the recruitment practices of the San Jose Police Officers Association and says its membership numbers merely reflect officers’ confidence in their union’s leadership.

“There were barrels of ink spilled writing about of that decision, and I think our members are acutely aware of their rights and benefits of joining a union,” Saggau said.

“…The POA has had extraordinarily clear communication over the years, and for the members, I think it means a lot to know that someone has their voice,” he said.