How Janus v. AFSCME Could Expand Worker Freedom

MAY 9, 2018 by Americans for Prosperity

In 22 states without right-to-work laws, government workers who opt out of union membership can still be forced to fund collective bargaining through agency fees.

Agency fees are used for inherently political purposes, not only collective bargaining which impacts public policy, but also for donations to politically-motivated non-profit groups.

The Janus v. AFSCME case could change all that by declaring that collective bargaining fees should be optional – a decision that would determine the future of worker freedom for decades to come.

Americans for Prosperity Policy Director Akash Chougule elaborates on the significance of the Janus case in his op-ed on FoxNews.com:

AFSCME is one of the largest contributors to political causes and candidates in the country, but maybe not for long.

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering a potentially landmark First Amendment case brought by Mark Janus, a public employee in Illinois who argues that his rights are violated by an Illinois law that forces him to pay for AFSCME’s collective bargaining.

Janus argues that because AFSCME’s collective bargaining with the government affects public policy issues like taxes, spending, pension liabilities and more, such bargaining amounts to lobbying and political speech.

Read the full article on AmericansforProsperity.org