News10: Supreme Court ruling on union dues causing confusion

ALBANY, N.Y. (NEWS10) - After the Supreme Court ruling in the Janus case regarding union fees, there has been some confusion on what has actually changed, prompting the state to release guidelines to help answer any questions.

The Empire Center for Public Policy released a report saying that some of the guidelines are wrong. For example, it says that unions do not have to provide membership cards to employers, which Ken Girardin says goes directly against state law. 

"If the governor gave this kind of advice to a paying client, he'd likely face malpractice charges." 

USA Today: Supreme Court’s Janus v AFSCME ruling will force unions to be more accountable

Teacher op-ed: As a teacher in Minnesota, I didn’t have a choice about whether or not to pay the union that was supposed to represent me, and when my union ultimately failed to stand by my side during a dispute with my district, I had no choice but to continue paying it.

Washington Post: Why I took my case over forced union dues to the Supreme Court

Washington Post: Why I took my case over forced union dues to the Supreme Court

Mark Janus was the plaintiff in Janus v. AFSCME.

My home state of Illinois is in financial free fall. The state has billions of dollars in unpaid bills, has unbalanced budgets and is bleeding people and money.

A state doesn’t get into a mess like this overnight. It’s the result of many seemingly small decisions over many years. It’s for that reason that I fought to not be part of that mess — all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Fox News: In Janus ruling, Supreme Court restores free speech rights to public workers like me

Teacher op-ed: In my home state of Alaska, teachers and other public employees are forced to pay fees to unions they didn’t choose to represent them, in order to hold the jobs they love.

Before moving to Alaska, I was a teacher in Idaho, a right-to-work state, where membership in a union is a choice. I chose not to belong.

Sun Times: Janus decision biggest victory for workers’ rights in a generation

The United States Supreme Court has just delivered the biggest victory for workers’ rights in a generation. The case is Janus v. AFSCME. The plaintiff is Mark Janus, a child-support specialist who works for the state of Illinois. And I’m proud that the litigation firm of which I am president, the Liberty Justice Center, represented Mark in this landmark case.

Washington Examiner: Supreme Court's Janus ruling finally gives a voice to 5M workers

The government can no longer force its employees to pay a union as a condition of their employment. That’s what the Supreme Court decided on Wednesday in the case Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

This decision is life-changing for about 5 million government workers in 22 states, who have been forced to give part of every paycheck to a government union just to do their jobs.

Illinois State Government Stops Collecting "Fair Share" Fees for AFSCME, Other Government Worker Unions

The state will stop deducting agency fees from workers who have opted out of the union, effective immediately.

As of June 27, the state of Illinois will no longer deduct union agency fees from the paychecks of nonmember public employees. Previously, Illinois workers were forced to pay fees to government unions as a condition of their employment.

Democrat and Chronicle: What the Janus decision means in New York, the nation's most unionized state

ALBANY - The Supreme Court ruling Wednesday that unions cannot collect fees from non-members could have wide implications across New York, which has the nation’s most heavily unionized public sector.

Unions in New York derided the groundbreaking decision by the closely divided Supreme Court as it may weaken their membership, but business groups and union critics applauded the measure. New York's labor leaders said they will work hard to encourage public workers to continue to pay all fees and dues.

New York has the highest percentage of union workers in the nation.

Supreme Court’s union ruling helps balance the scales for taxpayers

Headlines about the US Supreme Court’s ruling in the Janus case stressed the “blow” to public-sector unions, but government workers were big winners. Taxpayers, too.

The court said employees who don’t join unions shouldn’t have to pay “agency fees,” even though the unions bargain on their behalf. That’s partly because, under the law, nonunion workers have no choice but to let the unions negotiate for them; they’re not allowed to represent themselves or have another union go to bat for them.

Daily Signal: Supreme Court Strikes Down Mandatory Union Fees for Government Employees

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Wednesday that nonunion government workers can’t be forced to pay dues or other fees to support a union, further diminishing the power of organized labor and setting up what right-to-work proponents called the “hard work” of protecting free speech rights for the nation’s government employees.

Right-to-work advocates also expressed concern about what they see as ongoing conflicts of interest between public employee unions and the government officials whom those same unions help elect into positions of influence over union contracts negotiated at taxpayer expense.

Supreme Court Rules Public Employees Are Not Required to Fund Unions in Big Win for First Amendment Rights

In a landmark decision for First Amendment rights, the U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that public employees cannot be compelled to pay union fees as a condition of employment. The 5-4 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME restores the First Amendment rights of freedom of association and free speech to more than five million government employees nationwide.

The ruling appears to require that employers of “fair share” fee payers must stop deducting fees immediately until they have affirmative consent from the employees to do so.  Center of the American Experiment estimates that 10,000 or more public employees who pay fair share fees will immediately see an increase in their paycheck with the end of forced union fees.

Fox News: Supreme Court’s Janus decision is a win for government workers (and all Americans)

In its 5-4 ruling Wednesday in Janus vs. AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees), the Supreme Court overturned decades-old precedent that allowed government unions to require public employees to pay union fees or risk being fired.

Now millions of teachers, police officers, firefighters and other government employees across the country gain the freedom to decide if paying a union is a worthwhile proposition. This is how it should have always been – no one should be forced to finance an organization he or she disagrees with

CNBC: Supreme Court rules nonunion workers cannot be forced to pay fees to public sector unions

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Wednesday in Janus v. AFSCME that nonunion workers cannot be forced to pay fees to public sector unions.

The case, one of the most hotly anticipated of the term, is the second in two days to hand a major victory to conservatives, following Tuesday's ruling by the high court that President Donald Trump's travel ban is constitutional. Some experts had said a finding in favor of the plaintiff, Mark Janus, would be the most significant court decision affecting collective bargaining in decades.

Reuters: Some U.S. States Embrace Pro-Union Laws, With Key Fees Imperiled

Anticipating a setback at the U.S. Supreme Court, several labor-friendly states passed Democratic-backed laws in recent months intended to protect a vital source of money for unions that was imperiled under a major ruling by the justices on Wednesday.

At least six states have passed laws, some making it harder for non-union workers to stop paying the fees and others making it easier for unions to sign up new members, and more are expected elsewhere.

Washington Examiner: Supreme Court decision puts workers in driver’s seat

Teacher op-ed: What could you do with an extra $14,000? Buy a new car? Put a down payment on a home? Build your child’s college fund? I can think of many ways to spend this, but unfortunately, I had no choice but to hand it over to a union simply because I’m a public school teacher in Ohio, where people can be fired for not paying money to a union.

Chicago Tribune: How AFSCME's demands invited the Janus case

Chicago Tribune: How AFSCME's demands invited the Janus case

It’s fitting that Mark Janus, the plaintiff behind a highly anticipated U.S. Supreme Court ruling this week, works for Illinois government. The union he sued is particularly influential in politics and policy here — with perilous outcomes for taxpayers.

If the U.S. Supreme Court rules for Janus, it won’t mean public employee unions are dead in Illinois. What it will mean is that union leaders will have to work harder to persuade workers to keep paying. AFSCME will have to prove its worth.