Over time the rightward-shifting Republican Party has come to view Reagan's mass firings not as a focused effort to stop one union from breaking the law — as Reagan portrayed it — but rather as a blow against public sector unionism itself.
Under his argument, public sector unionism is an inherently political activity, since the salaries and benefits that the unions bargain for impact state budgets and the use of taxpayer dollars.
The conservative groups backing the lawsuit argue that, unlike in the private sector, public-sector unionism is political by nature, since unions are negotiating over wages paid expressly by taxpayers.
Under his argument, public-sector unionism is inherently political, because the things unions bargain over ― wages, health care and other benefits ― impact the use of taxpayer dollars.
As in the U.S., public-sector unionism is strong in Europe, Canada and Japan, and the illusion of continued union strength abroad reflects mainly the fact that their public sectors are relatively larger than ours.
Some Republicans quote President Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Democrat, who bridled at public-sector unionism and once said, "The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted in the public service".
Yet this development has nothing to do with some imagined spike in public-sector unionism.
The Supreme Court -- to the fear of union leaders, and to the glee of those on the right who loathe public-sector unionism -- has the potential to change all that on Monday.
The group of California teachers named in the suit argued that public-sector unionism is inherently political and that being forced to pay fair share fees therefore violated their First Amendment rights.
It was a difficult time for any trade union leader to inherit the hot seat of public sector trade unionism; still more so to take charge of an organisation so deeply threaded into the fabric of British labour history.
