Labor's Janus face: Union activism faces a Supreme Court reckoning

Adjust Comment Print

A ruling in favor of Janus is expected to kill fair share fees in 22 states.

The issue is straightforward: Does public-sector unionism violate the First Amendment rights of workers who do not want to join a union?

On Monday the court heard arguments in the challenge to an IL law that allows unions representing government employees to collect fees from workers who choose not to join. She said the impact could create "free riders" who could benefit from a union's representation but not have to pay for it.

In January 2016, the justices heard arguments on the issue - with the court appearing to be headed to a 5-4 ruling against the unions.

But less than a month later, Justice Antonin Scalia died and the court soon after announced its tie, in effect a win for the unions.

But the elevation of conservative Neil Gorsuch to the court by President Donald Trump a year ago is likely to prove a decisive factor this time around.

"If the unions lose and I think they will, this will radically shrink membership in government unions - which will radically shrink the pool of cash available for the unions to give to their favorite Democratic candidates", he added. Oh, yes, there were also the political sessions unions conducted dealing with the resistance to the Trump Administration and before that, resolutions in support of Hillary Clinton for president. The case examines whether or not AFSCME or any other union can force public employees to pay a portion of union dues - called "agency fees" - even if they refuse to join the union.

"Telling somebody to pay the union is compelled speech, compelled political speech, which is absolutely prohibited by the First Amendment", David Dewhirst, chief litigation counsel for the Freedom Foundation, told PJ Media.

More news: Trump Threatens to Pull Immigration Agents Out of California
More news: 2 top advisers may leave over 'tensions' with Trump
More news: Kushner's security clearance in jeopardy as Kelly skirmish escalates

"Regardless of the outcome of this case, Working Partnerships will stand with working people and their unions", she said in a press release on Monday.

UPPER DARBY Members of Service Employees International Union Local 668 rallied outside of the county's Children and Youth Services offices at 69th Street at high noon Monday to let the country know the importance of union labor.

Szopacs said "freeloaders" like Janus should exercise their right to find another job if they don't want to pay the "fair share" fee.

The fees are typically less money than the union dues but are still sometimes required of these non-member employees.

Barring a major upset, the addition of Neil Gorsuch means this Supreme Court likely will overturn Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, spelling the end of those fees, Axios reports.

"I just look at it as an average guy kind of standing up for his own rights of free speech, he explained". The other 27 states allow people the "Right To Work" without unions picking their pockets.

"If we can permit the government as employer to do something as dramatic as firing someone", asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor, how can the government not be permitted to require them to pay "a fair share fee"? It's the Koch Brothers, it's the National Right-To-Work Defense Fund, which is funded by billionaires who have a sole desire to see unions go away.