Find and share spotify playlists

I hadn't heard of this case previously, but as a former member and strong supporter of a public-sector employee union, I am really concerned about this issue. Most public sector unions I am familiar with - the Federal employees organizations - have acquired collective bargaining rights via employee vote, and in most cases the union becomes the sole representative and exclusive bargaining agent for employees.
Federal employees are not required to join the unions, yet if their... agency has a union, it bargains for ALL it's employees, not just the members. So, whether the employee pays dues or not, they enjoy the benefits of a collectively bargained contract. Also, in the Federal employee unions, the exclusive bargaining agent (the union) also had a 'duty of fair representation' to all employees, meaning that in many (not every) cases, non-payers got the same representation in grievances, etc. as the paying members.
One of the biggest gripes union members had about the non-dues-paying employees was that they took the attitude of 'why buy the cow...' about joining. In the interests of full full disclosure principle, I will admit that the level of representation for a non-member was often considerably less, shall we say, assertive than for a member. But the principle still applies.
While I am not too up on the rules or contracts for the CTA or other non-fed unions, I'd believe that the situation, based on the facts presented here, aren't too different.
L;;k, unions are good for everyone, even for employers although they'd never admit it. I Hope SCOTUS has some appreciation of this, and finds for the CTA. The plaintiff, Friedrichs, is just full of sour grapes. And I wonder who is REALLY bankrolling her.