This is the Cato Daily Podcast for Tuesday, January 12, 2016.

I'm Caleb Brown.

The Supreme Court is now considering whether to continue to allow unions to extract fees from non-members.

A near-identical case is pending in Illinois, Janice

Viasme. Mark Janice is the lead plaintiff. Jacob Hubert is a senior attorney at the Liberty

Justice Center in Illinois.

We spoke yesterday about what the Supreme Court's Fridrich's case would mean.

There are multiple plaintiffs in your case. It hinges critically on the outcome in the Friedrich's case, which as we record this was heard at the US Supreme Court today.

So Mark, you are one of the plaintiffs.

Why don't you tell us how you got here?

Well, I was, you know, I was looking at the fees that I was paying you know to the AFSCME Union

you know which represents me you know in contract negotiations and so on but I am not a member of and they take a fair share

fee or agency fee you know out of my paycheck, you know, twice a month.

And how much is it?

It's about $23.50, if I recall correctly, and of which I have no say, you know, why they do it or and the like.

And you know the difficulty is is they don't represent a lot of what I agree with in their different positions.

And so it, you know, I learned about the potential of the lawsuit and you know they were looking for you

know state workers to potentially sign on and I thought well this is the best way I

can get involved in trying to be able to, you know, write what I consider a wrong in having

to pay these what they call fair share fees.

All right, Jacob, to the union.

Jacob as a legal matter, what this case hinges critically, almost entirely, upon the outcome

...