In a 1977 decision* involving the United Steelworkers of America, the U.S. Supreme Court by a split vote upset a union rule requiring candidates for local union office to have attended at least one-half of a local’s regular meetings for the 3 years preceding the election. Under the union’s rule, 96.5 percent of the members of the local were disqualified from union office. In its decision, the high court stressed that national labor legislation (and specifically the Landrum-Griffin Act of 1959) was designed to promote union democracy without interfering unduly with union internal affairs. It said:

Applying these principles to this case, we conclude that … the anti-democratic effects of the meeting attendance rule outweighs the interests urged in its support. … An attendance requirement that results in the exclusion of 96.5 percent of the members from candidacy for union office hardly seems to be a “reasonable qualification” (as required by Landrum-Griffin) consistent with the goal of free and democratic elections. A requirement having that result obviously severely restricts the free choice of the membership in selecting their leaders.

The minority of the court believed the attendance rule to be a reasonable qualification. It criticized the majority for using a statistical test. The rule was reasonable, it said, because it could encourage attendance at meetings, guarantee that candidates for office had a meaningful interest in the union, and assure that the candidates had a chance to become informed about union affairs.

Do you agree with the majority or the minority here and, in either case, why?