I’m Dan DiSalvo, senior fellow at Manhattan Institute, author of Government Against Itself: Public Union Power and Its Consequences, and associate professor at the City University of New York (CUNY). Any day now, the state and local government employment landscape may dramatically change.
Here’s what a ruling in favor of Illinois state employee Mark Janus can mean for 22 non-right-to-work states:
- Major victory for public workers’ rights to freedom of speech and association
- More than 5 million state and local government workers will win the option to avoid agency fees if they do not want to be members
- Politicians will gain the flexibility to address pension and retiree health-care costs that are squeezing state and local budgets
If the court rules in favor of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), it maintains the status quo – forcing non-union members to continue paying agency fees, thus undermining their First Amendment rights.
Check out this explainer video to help colleagues, family, and friends understand the wide-reaching implications of Janus v. AFSCME: the most important labor reform case in a generation.
Daniel DiSalvo breaks down the wide-reaching implications of the upcoming Supreme Court case, Janus v. AFSCME. If the court rules in favor of the plaintiff, Mark Janus, an Illinois public worker, he and other non-union members will no longer be forced to pay agency fees.
