PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I have never been a union member, so that makes me hesitant to write about union issues.

But there is a case – Janus v. AFSCME — before the U.S. Supreme Court this week that has huge implications for public employee unions around the country. From me, it compels a few comments.

Here is the question posted by the case:

• Do you force public employees to pay union dues?
• Or, do you give public employees the option to pay such dues?

The Wall Street Journal wrote about the case this way:

“The Supreme Court on Monday will hear the landmark First Amendment case Janus v. Afscme that challenges whether public employees can be compelled to subsidize union advocacy. As Thomas Jefferson once wrote, requiring “a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical”—and unconstitutional.”

Advocates in Oregon have tried to get this issue on the ballot a couple times, but always failed.

In “right to work” states – there are 28 in the country and that does not include Oregon – unions cannot force public employees to join their ranks. In the other states, including Oregon, employees have no choice and, often, those employees don’t like where union leaders direct the dues employees pay, including to major political campaigns regardless of what employees think about those campaigns.

In a piece by John Stossell in the social media site, Reason, Lee Saunders, the president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), said, “If we lose this case, the entire public sector will be right to work.”

Stossell writes on: “That outcome would thrill Rebecca Friedrichs. She’s the teacher who filed the right-to-work lawsuit that went to the Supreme Court two years ago. Friedrichs got mad at the California Teachers Association during the last recession. Good teachers at her school were about to be laid off. She’d tried to protect them by getting all teachers to agree to a slight pay cut.

“’All America was taking a pay cut then,’” she told Stossell. “’Why should we be any different?’”

“But her union wouldn’t even allow her to survey other teachers. They told me, Rebecca, don’t worry about those teachers who were about to lose jobs. We’re going to give them a seminar on how to get unemployment benefits.”

The Supreme Court heard the Fredrichs case about a year ago, but then Justice Antonin Scalia died. It’s likely he would have been the needed fifth vote to carry the day 5 to 4. With his death, the court appeared to be deadlocked 4 to 4.

The new suit, filed this time by another government worker, Mark Janus, goes to a Court where Neil Gorsuch is now seated and unions are worried he will supply the fifth vote.

For their part, union officials contend it’s not fair for employees to gain the benefit of collective bargaining when they don’t pay for it. They say they provide “needed protections” for workers.

When I represented the management in state government union negotiations a number of years ago, I heard this refrain over and over. But unions also directed a lot of their employee-paid money to political contributions, almost always to the Democrat side of the ledger.

That prompts me to say that I have what I believe is an easy answer here. Create two dues structures. One would finance collective bargaining if, in fact, there is to be collective bargaining for government employees. The second portion of dues would be directed to political contributions. Require unions to keep two separate books.

Then, give employees the freedom to opt out of the political contribution portion.

Sounds easy. But I suspect union leaders won’t stand for cutting back their ability to make contributions, especially to Democrats who almost always support their views.

Now, it’s true that the Janus case is not just about union political contributions, and neither was the earlier case filed by Fredrichs. Both involve collective bargaining positions with which the employees disagreed.

Still, my “two dues structure” proposition is just one man’s view of an equitable solution.