Unions have long been the subject of great debate in this country. In the 21st century, things have not changed. The U.S. Supreme Court is currently deliberating a case that would fundamentally alter the way public sector unions operate.

Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, recently heard by the court, is still pending. If the court rules in favor of the petitioner, public employees would be permitted to reap the benefits of a union-negotiated contract without being mandated to pay dues into said union.

The recent death of longtime Associate Justice Antonin Scalia has placed the case into a state of limbo. Commentary from The Atlantic and Los Angeles Times predicts the vote will come to a 4-4 tie, which would allow the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling in favor of organized labor to stand. However, a decision isn’t likely to be known until June.

Not surprisingly, union leaders across the country have kept a close eye on the outcome of the case. Evan Luzar, president of the Beachwood Federation of Teachers, expressed strong opposition of the petitioner’s view.

Luzar’s concerns are justified. If an employee is allowed to benefit from a union contract without being legally obligated to pay into a union, why might an employee consider union membership in the first place?

For employees who take issue with their union’s politics, the option of a ‘fair share’ contract (a practice that is currently in place) is more than reasonable. These contracts afford an individual all the protections of a union-negotiated contract, while allowing them to be reimbursed for social outreach conducted by their union, at the local, state and federal levels.

Granted, public sector unions can drive up the cost of government. For instance, union negotiations do lead to higher salaries that taxpayers pay for. Should organized labor lose its power, it would almost certainly spare school districts and municipal government some expense.

However, you get what you pay for.

Do we truly wish to live in a society where the police officer who takes a report of gunshots is distracted by how he’s going to pay his electric bill or feed his children? What about the math teacher who tutors well before school starts and stays late after the dismissal bell?

Public employees are deserving of a sufficient wage that is commensurate to the effort they put into the job, along with the immense responsibilities they carry each day. To suggest otherwise would be doing a severe disservice to the public servants who work diligently throughout their career.

Unions have been long been an important check on exploitation of workers, as Bob King, then president of the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America expressed in a 2012 NPR interview.

“The majority of workers in America would like to be in a union, if they could be,” King said.  “What is true in America, is that … workers have lost the full democratic right to decide if they want to be in unions or not.”

If teachers and other public employees see reductions in salary and benefits, one can infer that those who are most qualified would be the most likely to leave public service. As a consequence, employees with less experience would be molding the minds of our nation’s youth and working in other government jobs.

According to a 2015 Washington Post article, unions in right-to-work law states, such as Wisconsin, have struggled to remain relevant. In Wisconsin, the Post reported, the state’s branch of the American Federation of Teachers has lost half its membership since the law was enacted in 2011.

Union officials, across nearly every arm of public service, devote countless hours to ensuring safe, efficient working conditions for their members. For an individual to take advantage of such efforts would be morally reprehensible.