Janus v. AFSCME

The U.S. Supreme Court’s impending ruling in a landmark labor-relations case could deal a big blow to the power of public employee unions across the country, especially in a heavily-unionized state such as New York.

The concerns and questions raised by the case, Janus vs. AFSCME, were the subject of a panel hosted by the Empire Center for Public Policy on Wednesday. State Senator Diane Savino and Daniel DiSalvo, an assistant professor at the City College of New York, discussed the case at the Albany Capital Center and Capital Tonight host Liz Benjamin moderated the debate.

Janus v. AFSCME is one of the most important Supreme Court cases this term and perhaps one of the most important in decades. It concerns a claim that under the First Amendment, unionized government workers should not be forced to subsidize union speech to keep their jobs. This issue was to be decided in 2016’s Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, but Justice Antonin Scalia’s death left the court in a 4-4 deadlock.

Most court observers expect Justice Neil Gorsuch to break this tie in Janus, so they sought to discern his views on labor matters from the recently decided Epic Systems v. Lewis case. (That decision concerned how the National Labor Relations Act and the Federal Arbitration Act interact.) The most interesting part about Janus to date, however, is what public sector unions and their allies are doing.

 Will making agency fees optional result in dramatic change?

The potential is there for dramatic change, because as of 2017, 7.2 million government workers belong to a union. Their total membership nearly equals the total membership of private sector unions, 7.6 million, despite federal, state and local government workers only comprising about 17% of the U.S. workforce. In California, state and local government unions are estimated to collect and spend over $1.0 billion every year.

While there are many education policy questions that divide Americans, we can all agree that our hardworking and talented educators deserve great compensation, clean and safe workplaces, and our genuine appreciation for doing a job critical to our country’s future.

Here’s something else we should all agree on: educators, as professionals who are tasked with teaching our children to become independent, critical thinkers, should have the power to decide whether or not to join and fund the national teachers unions.

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:

If Mr. Janus wins his case, teachers, students, and families across the country will benefit, as school employees learn they do not have to join a union against their will. Ending forced unionism will reduce fear and conflict in public school working conditions, meaning increased morale and respect for teachers, and higher-quality instruction for students.

Currently, public school teachers in Washington State must pay about $1,000 in annual dues to the powerful Washington Education Association (WEA) or risk losing their jobs. Many feel intimidated, moreover, fearing they will be punished if they voice opinions contrary to those of union executives.

The Supreme Court recently heard arguments in Janus v. AFSCME, a case involving “agency fees” that unions impose on workers who aren’t members to cover union activities with the exception of political action. As a teacher who was a plaintiff in a similar case two years ago, I hope the predictions on the court’s decision are correct. Although Janus is not a teacher, his case mirrors Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association in its purpose: No government worker should be forced to fund a union as a condition of employment, and no worker should be forced to pay for political speech with which he disagrees.

I resigned from the teachers’ union about 20 years ago. Despite saying “thanks, but no thanks” to union membership, they still pull dues money out of my check against my wishes. This continues like clockwork, month after month, year after year. If I fill out the necessary paperwork each school year, I get about 38 percent of my dues money back, since that amount is what the union claims it spends on political activity. By law, I don’t have to pay for what the union says is “political.” But, just 38 percent?

To Illinois College alum Mark Janus, who is at the center of a history-making Supreme Court case, it’s about standing up for what he believes is right.

It’s that belief that resulted in his fight against the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union to the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court’s decision could play a pivotal role in how union dues are handled for non-union employees.

On Monday morning in the nation’s capital, Americans exercised their right to demonstrate peacefully on the steps of the Supreme Court. Hundreds of public employees, unions officials, and lawyers like me from all over the country, came with signs and chants to demand two very different versions of freedom.

Inside the courthouse the Supreme Court heard arguments for and against requiring public employees, as a condition of employment, to pay so-called “fair-share” fees to a union. The central legal argument in Janus v. AFSCME is simple and compelling: all public-sector collective bargaining is inherently political because it directly affects the cost, size and nature of government. Forcing employees to pay for union speech violates the First Amendment.

WASHINGTON — Dianne Knox describes herself as “a child of the ’60s.” Pam Harris grew up a butcher’s daughter in a proud union household. Rebecca Friedrichs was secretary of her local teachers’ union. Mark Janus supports the rights of workers to organize.

But as the lead plaintiffs in four successive Supreme Court cases challenging the power of public employee unions, Knox, Harris, Friedrichs and Janus take pride in helping conservative groups reach a tipping point in their decade-long, anti-union campaign.