One of them is another labor case that comes from Los Angeles but could affect car dealerships nationwide. At issue in Encino Motorcars vs. Navarro is whether service advisors are entitled to overtime pay. Federal law exempts "any salesman" or employee who is "primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles." The 9th Circuit ruled that service advisors are entitled to overtime pay because they are not salesmen or do not service cars. They advise customers on what work should be done. ||||| The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case originally brought by Gov. Bruce Rauner that challenges whether government employee unions should be able to collect fees from nonmembers, a critical question for organized labor nationwide that the court deadlocked over last year. 
 
 In one of his first acts in office in February 2015, the Republican governor attempted to halt the passing along of the union fees in order to invite a legal challenge. On Thursday, the Supreme Court agreed to consider the lawsuit that resulted, and Rauner said a victory would be "transformative for the state of Illinois, transformative for America." 
 
 Losing the required fees worries labor leaders because it could lead to more workers leaving unions to avoid the cost, starving unions of money and members. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union at the center of the lawsuit called it "yet another example of corporate interests using their power and influence to launch a political attack on working people and rig the rules of the economy in their own favor." 
 
 A similar case out of California was already in the legal pipeline when Rauner acted in 2015. By the time it was decided, the Supreme Court was short one member following the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia. The court issued a 4-4 split decision that left the existing system intact. 
 
 With President Donald Trump's appointment of Neil Gorsuch, the court's ruling in the Illinois case could deal a major blow to public-sector unions nationwide if Gorsuch sides with the conservative justices who were in favor of doing away with the "fair share" fees. 
 
 Unions negotiate new contracts and handle grievances on behalf of all workers within a bargaining unit, not just those who are members. The fees help pay for those efforts. 
 
 J. Scott Applewhite / AP A Supreme Court with a reconstituted conservative majority is taking on a new case with the potential to financially cripple Democratic-leaning labor unions that represent government workers. The justices deadlocked 4-4 in a similar case last year. A Supreme Court with a reconstituted conservative majority is taking on a new case with the potential to financially cripple Democratic-leaning labor unions that represent government workers. The justices deadlocked 4-4 in a similar case last year. (J. Scott Applewhite / AP) (J. Scott Applewhite / AP) 
 
 Illinois is one of about two dozen states that requires its workers to pay fair share fees to public employee unions even if they are not union members. The thinking is that workers who are not part of a union still benefit from its services, even if they don't support the union's political agenda. If the fees were no longer required, more workers might decide not to join unions in an effort to keep more money in their paychecks. 
 
 Rauner has contended that the fair share system violates free speech and that workers should not have to support unions they don't want to belong to. Unions are not allowed to spend fair share fees on political activities such as campaign contributions, but the governor has questioned that restriction, saying it's impossible to separate political activities because public-sector unions negotiate directly with the government. 
 
 "By its very nature, the activity of a government union is political," Rauner said in a Thursday interview with the Tribune. "Everything they do is political because it's inside government, it impacts politics." 
 
 Hours after the high court had announced its decision to take up the case, Rauner was in victory mode as he gave a speech at a luncheon of the Illinois Chamber of Commerce. 
 
 "This is a big deal, ladies and gentlemen, big deal," Rauner said, adding that his lawyers have predicted a "90 percent chance" of the ruling going in his favor, which he said would be "transformative for the state of Illinois, transformative for America and the relationship between our taxpayers and the people who work for our taxpayers. It's not going to be a one-way deal anymore." 
 
 The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees — the largest public employee union in Illinois and the one at the center of the lawsuit — predicted victory for their side. 
 
 "When working people are able to join strong unions, they have the strength in numbers they need to fight for the freedoms they deserve, like access to quality health care, retirement security and time off work to care for a loved one," AFSCME President Lee Saunders said in a statement. "The merits of the case, and 40 years of Supreme Court precedent and sound law, are on our side. We look forward to the Supreme Court honoring its earlier rulings." 
 
 The Illinois case dates to 2015, when Rauner issued an executive order that directed state government to stop passing fair share fees on to unions. Anticipating a legal challenge, Rauner also filed a federal lawsuit seeking to have his decision declared legal and hoping to bring the issue to the Supreme Court. 
 
 The executive order was put on hold when a judge in Downstate St. Clair County ordered the state to keep passing the fees along while the matter continued to play out in court. Around the same time, a federal judge dismissed Rauner from a parallel case, saying he lacked standing to challenge public unions in his official capacity because he had "no personal interest at stake." 
 
 Three workers who also were contesting the payments were allowed to proceed with their own complaint. That's the case now before the Supreme Court, Janus v. AFSCME. 
 
 The lead plaintiff, Mark Janus, is a child support specialist at the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services. He's being represented by attorneys at the National Right to Work Foundation and the Illinois-based Liberty Justice Center, which is an affiliate of the Illinois Policy Institute, a conservative think tank with close ties to Rauner. 
 
 Arguments in the case are likely to take place in early 2018, with a decision expected before the June adjournment of the court. 
 
 Last year, the eight justices on the court deadlocked over a similar case brought by an Orange County teacher who asserted that her free speech rights were violated by being forced to pay about $650 a year in fees to a union. ||||| As a child support specialist at the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, my job is to fight for the little ones. 
 
 Sometimes when parents aren't together anymore, kids get caught in the crossfire. These scars can last well beyond childhood, and they often mean that kids don't get the resources they need to live a decent life. 
 
 So I advocate for these children, hoping that maybe if this process goes a little bit smoother, their futures will be just a little bit brighter. 
 
 I went into this line of work because I care about kids. But just because I care about kids doesn't mean I also want to support a government union. 
 
 Unfortunately, I have no choice. To keep my job at the state, I have to pay monthly fees to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, or AFSCME, a public employee union that claims to "represent" me. 
 
 The union voice is not my voice. The union's fight is not my fight. 
 
 But for the first time in my many years as a public employee, I have hope. Next week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association. "Friedrichs" in this case is Rebecca Friedrichs, an elementary school teacher who is the lead plaintiff on the lawsuit brought by a group of 10 California teachers and the Christian Educators Association. Friedrichs is a lot like me: someone who loves her job but is forced against her will to pay money to a union, just to stay in the classroom. 
 
 If Friedrichs wins her case, it would mean freedom for government workers like me. Freedom to choose whether we want to belong to or financially support a union in our workplace. 
 
 When I was hired by the state of Illinois, no one asked if I wanted a union to represent me. I only found out the union was involved when money for the union started coming out of my paychecks. 
 
 I don't see my union working totally for the good of Illinois government. For years it supported candidates who put Illinois into its current budget and pension crisis. Government unions have pushed for government spending that made the state's fiscal situation worse. 
 
 How is that good for the people of the state? Or, for that matter, my fellow union members who face the threat of layoffs or their pension funds someday running dry? 
 
 The union voice is not my voice. The union's fight is not my fight. 
 
 But a piece of my paycheck every week still goes to the union. 
 
 I am not anti-union. Unions have their place. And some people like them. 
 
 But unions aren't a fit for everyone. And I shouldn't be forced to pay money to a union if I don't think it does a good job representing my interests. 
 
 When I bring this up, people often tell me I'm not forced to pay for union politics, meaning the extra amounts that some employees choose to give toward political action groups that make candidate donations. (This implies that it is acceptable to force people to pay private organizations for other reasons.) 
 
 In half the states, including Indiana, Wisconsin and Michigan, people who work in government can choose whether they want to pay money to a union. 
 
 Why shouldn't all government workers have that right? What are the unions so afraid of? 
 
 The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of association. I don't want to be associated with a union that claims to represent my interests and me when it really doesn't. 
 
 I may be in the minority of Illinois government workers on this issue, but it doesn't mean my rights matter any less. 
 
 Good luck, Rebecca Friedrichs. There are a lot of us out here rooting for you. 
 
 Mark Janus is the lead plaintiff in Janus v. AFSCME, a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Illinois law that requires state workers to pay union dues or fees. 
 
 Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @Trib_Ed_Board and on Facebook.
– Teachers and other public employees are now eyeing the Supreme Court after it announced Thursday it will take on a case next summer that may have big repercussions for unions. The Los Angeles Times reports the high court will look at overruling the requirement that all public employees, not just union members, pay fees that support collective bargaining. The case, being brought on behalf of Illinois child support specialist Mark Janus, could affect unions in 22 states where those "fair share" fees are now mandated for all public employees; labor experts think many would stop paying if they weren't forced to. With conservative Neil Gorsuch now on the gavel, it's expected the ruling won't favor the unions. The country's four largest public-sector unions are blasting the complaint as "a blatantly political and well-funded plot ... to further rig the economic rules against everyday working people." The case stretches back to 2015, when Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner filed a complaint saying the mandated fees were unconstitutional, per the Chicago Tribune. Three state employees, including Janus, joined the suit, which was eventually thrown out by a federal judge and an appeals court. The ruling used as precedence was the 1977 Supreme Court case of Abood vs. Detroit Board of Education, in which it was decided all public employees, even those not in unions, must pay a portion of union dues that go toward collective bargaining efforts, as those efforts benefit all employees. Early last year, Janus penned an op-ed for the Tribune explaining why he didn't feel he should be required to pay the fees, writing: "I am not anti-union. Unions have their place. … But unions aren't a fit for everyone. And I shouldn't be forced to pay money to a union if I don't think it does a good job representing my interests."