This chapter argues that a pro-democracy First Amendment should also be a pro-union First Amendment. It is an article of faith that a significant purpose of the First Amendment is to enable and improve democracy, by helping Americans access the information they need for democratic deliberation and participation. Further, a considerable body of research shows that labor unions make American democracy stronger and more representative. But despite this, the Supreme Court has treated unions’ political advocacy in cases involving union agency fees with suspicion and disdain. After describing this unfortunate situation – one that is likely to get worse under the current Supreme Court – the chapter closes on a note of optimism, looking ahead to a time when scholars and advocates can realistically begin the work of rebuilding a First Amendment that recognizes labor unions as democracy-enhancing institutions.

This essay addresses those aspects of the anti-union argument that focus exclusively on the public sector. First, the claim that the public sector is different than the private sector and whatever reasons we may have to support unionization in the latter do not apply in the former. Second, the claim that public sector unionization increases the size of government, yet government is already far too big. Third, the claim that because public employees provide essential services, public sector unions can extort excessive salaries and benefits out of government. Fourth, the claim that public sector unionization undermines democracy, for it gives public employees undue influence in the electoral process. Fifth, the claim that regardless of whether unionization of the public sector is good for public employees, it is bankrupting the rest of us. And finally, the claim that even if public sector unionization is permissible, workers must be free to refuse to join, and forcing those who do not join to pay dues in any form would be an unconstitutional form of compelled speech. In response, I show that each of these claims are wrong not only on the facts but more importantly on the underlying moral claims they invoke.