Janus v. AFSCME

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.

Watch Janus v. AFSCME plaintiff Mark Janus and attorney Jacob Huebert talk about the Supreme Court ruling on public sector unions.

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.

What will happen to teachers’ unions in a world without agency fees? One large, internal union poll found that without agency fees, 35 percent of its members would remain in the union, 15 percent would leave, and fully 50 percent were undecided. Teachers’ unions are expecting membership losses after Janus, but the future of one of the country’s most powerful interest groups depends on whether declines are closer to 15 or 65 percent.

Rebecca Friedrichs is a teacher and was the lead plaintiff challenging the California Teachers Association’s “agency shop” arrangement, She joins Insight to explain why she decided to file her lawsuit and challenged the CTA all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

As president of AFSCME Local 3790 in New Jersey, I empathize with Phillip’s difficult position of being pitted between his personal principles and the coerced nature of the law. Like him, I have been anxiously awaiting a ruling from the Supreme Court. For me, it is the case Janus v. AFSCME, which could release me from being forced to pay a union that does not represent my best interests. Through its political activities, my union acts in ways that is opposite to my own political efforts. Masterpiece focused on the application of freedom of religion and Janus focuses on our First Amendment right to free speech. Nevertheless, the two cases have very little to do with a debate over the merits of any particular union, whether marital or labor, and everything to do with one issue: the freedom to choose.

I hope to see the Supreme Court restore my freedom of speech by ruling in favor of Mark Janus, thus freeing me and approximately five million government workers nationwide from being forced to pay a union as a condition of employment. Yet, this hope should not be misconstrued as a position against government unions in general.

Just in time for Independence Day, the U.S. Supreme Court has delivered millions into greater liberty – and a day of reckoning for public-sector union leaders.

The court struck down as unconstitutional the arrangement – heretofore enshrined in law in 22 states – that forced government workers to pay union fees for the privilege of keeping their jobs.

As organized labor braces for a Supreme Court ruling that could make it easy for public-sector workers to stop paying some dues, unions across the country are reaching out to hundreds of thousands of members to persuade them to keep paying dues.

The Service Employees International Union has sent text messages to 800,000 members as part of a program that includes meeting with workers and sending mailers to homes.