Final answer:
The Janus v. AFSCME decision has weakened unions by making it harder to collect fees from non-union members, alongside broader trends of job growth in non-unionized service sectors and federal laws that make union membership appear less necessary for some workers.
Step-by-step explanation:
The recent U.S. Supreme Court case Janus v. AFSCME has had significant impacts on the role and influence of unions in the United States. One primary effect has been the further challenge in organizing workers and expanding membership, especially in sectors where unions have traditionally been less prevalent, such as the service industry. Additionally, as the federal government has enacted legislation covering various aspects of worker protection, such as wages, discrimination, overtime, and parental leave, some workers feel that the need for union representation has diminished. This reflects the paradox of unions becoming victims of their own success through their advocacy for workers' rights legislation which, once passed, can reduce the perceived necessity of union membership.
While unions in the manufacturing sector have seen a decline in membership due to job migration to the service industry, government workers continue to represent a substantial portion of union membership in big unions like AFSCME, Service Employees International Union, and the National Education Association. Overall, economic issues such as job growth, legislation on working conditions, and the disparity in union strength between different sectors reveal the complex landscape unions navigate in today's economy.