Unions locking workers in

As government workers begin exercising their rights to leave their unions, some are speaking out about the ways government unions are trying to lock them into paying fees or dues.

The  Washington-based Freedom Foundation reported this disturbing incident: AFSCME 3299 refused to accept a union resignation letter submitted by a government worker. The union told the employee that her letter lacked “sufficient information” to verify that the worker did, in fact, wish to resign from her union. Instead, AFSCME 3299 instructed the employee to use the union’s own form – a form that would waive all membership rights but require the employee to pay “service fees” to the union indefinitely.

Must Read Alaska: How to stop paying public employee dues

With the US Supreme Court’s recent decision in Janus v. AFSCME, it is no longer legal to compel public employees to be union members or pay representation fees as a condition of employment.

For those public employees who choose to no longer be members or fee payers, it is not as simple as just stopping the payment or payroll deduction of dues if you are a member, and maybe even if you are a fee payer.

WSJ: Unions take a hit after Supreme Court ruling

Jessica Lapp, a 41-year-old fifth-grade teacher in Lancaster, Pa., has seen a bump in her pay as Pennsylvania stopped collecting about $400 a year she paid to the Pennsylvania State Education Association.

Ms. Lapp, who describes herself as a conservative Republican, earns about $60,000 a year and says she opposed the politics of the union and its parent, the National Education Association, which has consistently backed Democratic candidates. She declined union membership but was required to pay an agency fee.

“I feel great,” said Ms. Lapp. “We’re always talking to our kids ab

MassLive: Senate gives unions more power despite Janus decision in late-night vote

During the final hours of the legislative session, the Massachusetts Senate passed a bill that would give unions power to provide benefits only to their members, in a response to a recent Supreme Court decision.

The bill would also allow union representatives to meet with each new employee and give unions access to the addresses and phone numbers of all employees.

The Pioneer Institute, a free market think tank, wrote a response to a similar, though not identical, proposal last week. It said the bill: "would gut Massachusetts labor relations law," which currently prohibits public employers from discriminating against those who are not union members in hiring, tenure, or any term or condition of employment. The Pioneer Institute warned that employees could be intimidated or coerced into joining a union under these provisions.

Union Leader: NH study: $1M-plus savings from union dues ruling

CONCORD — The first such study of its kind in New Hampshire concludes nearly 2,200 public employees could save more than $1 million in their paychecks each year as a result of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled it violates the First Amendment to make workers pay fees to cover the cost of a union’s collective bargaining.

The total fees deducted represented about 20 percent of the more than $4 million in annual dues paid by the 7,051 state workers who are members of the Service Employees International Union 1984, otherwise known as the State Employees Association.

Government workers get a salary increase

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court made it illegal for governments to require teachers, first responders and other public sector workers to pay a government union as a condition of holding their job. What does this mean for government workers?

In at least six states, government workers just got a raise! This means that government workers can spend more of their hard-earned money on their families, their interests and the causes they care about – at no expense to their fellow taxpayers.

Here’s what we’re seeing across the country:

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.