ALBANY — As the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments on so-called fair share fees paid by nonunion members for the second time in two years, New York labor unions are pre-emptively trying to stave off possible repercussions of the federal case.

The U.S. Supreme Court, which deadlocked last term on the constitutionality of mandatory fair share fees, heard arguments today on the fees paid by millions of public-sector employees who are covered by a union contract though they are not union members. The case was brought to the country's highest court by the National Right to Work Foundation, which has been challenging the fees in court around the country, on behalf of Mark Janus, a child support specialist for the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services.

As the court considers the case, which could deal a blow to organized labor around the country, labor unions in New York held a news conference in the state Capitol to push for legislation that would “streamline the process for an individual to join a public-sector union.”

The legislation was introduced in May by Democratic State Sen. Marisol Alcantara, the chairwoman of the Senate Labor Committee, and would create uniformed, statewide standards for public employees. The bill would set time limits for the delay between a new public employee electing to join a union and when dues are deducted, and for notifying labor groups when new employees are hired.

Union leaders said Monday that they're pushing for the bill in the event the nation's high court rules in favor of Janus. The unions are also “internally talking to their members” about what the next steps are should the court rule in Janus' favor.

At the news conference Monday, the presidents of the New York State AFL-CIO, the New York State United Teachers Union and the executive vice president of CSEA, the civil service employees' union, in New York discussed how damaging a ruling against unions in Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) would be.

“This is not just about Mr. Janus. This is about a right-wing, conservative ideological attack on working men and women, the middle class and, in fact, organized labor,” said Mario Cilento, the president of the New York State AFL-CIO. “Those in the top 1 percent of corporate America do not like the fact that unions not only improve the lives of working men and women, but they raise the quality of life.”

“There are things you can do to streamline the process for those who want to be a member of the union and basically mitigate some of the damage this can cause down the line,” said Cilento.

Janus is suing AFSCME over what he argues is a violation of his rights to free speech. Illinois, like New York, allows unions to charge agency fees to employees who are covered by a union contract but are not members of the union. Janus has argued that the agency fees violate his free speech rights, because the union often takes positions with which he disagrees. In 1977, the constitutionality of public-sector agency fees was upheld in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. A ruling in favor of the plaintiff would mean an end of agency fees for employees who have not opted to join a union.

During his annual State of the State speech to the Legislature in January, Gov. Andrew Cuomo said he would “stand besides public labor unions in their fight for survival and do everything in his power to preserve workers' rights and protect the right to organize and collectively bargain.”

The Supreme Court ruling in favor of Janus would be a “disaster, said Barry Saltzman, a partner at Pitta LLP, a labor and employment firm based in New York City.

“Janus winning in the scale that he's asking for would really be a tremendous departure from existing First Amendment law for workers in the government sector,” he said, adding that such a decision would have “terrible practical effect” for New York.

If the Supreme Court were to side with Janus, union contracts with state and city employees throughout New York would have to be renegotiated, creating a lot of instability, Saltzman told the New York Law Journal.

Additionally, states that want to enact right-to-work policies and those that want to have fair share fees should do so without the court interfering, said Saltzman, whose firm represents more than 30 unions, according to the firm's website.

“There's no reason for a court of nine people who are not elected to make a rule that eviscerates home rule and tell New York 'you have to do this,'” Saltzman added.

Unions in New York hold considerable clout in the Capitol. Government unions in New York annually collect roughly $862 million in dues from more than a million employees, according to an analysis by the fiscally conservative Empire Center.

If the Supreme Court favored Janus, state government and New York city municipal employees who have indicated that they would rather not belong to a union would save $53 million a year in dues or duelike fees, the Empire Center report claims.

Distinguishing between union dues and agency fee payments would be easy for New York State government and the city of New York, both of which have accounting systems that distinguish the payments. But it will be more difficult for localities, school districts and public authorities that do not distinguish between the two.

“A pro-plaintiff ruling in Janus would also pose a logistical challenge for the large number of local governments, school districts and public authorities in New York that routinely withhold the equivalent of union dues from employee paychecks without distinguishing between actual union members and agency fee-paying non-members,” the Empire Center report states.