The Supreme Court Issues Janus Decision

By Sahid Fawaz

The Supreme Court has issued its ruling on the Janus case.

CNBC reports:

“The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Wednesday that non-union workers cannot be forced to pay fees to public sector unions.

‘Compelling individuals to mouth support for views they find objectionable violates that cardinal constitutional command, and in most contexts, any such effort would be universally condemned,’ wrote Justice Samuel Alito in the court’s opinion.

The case, one of the most hotly anticipated of the term, concerned whether public employees can be forced to pay fees that fund the work of public sector unions. Some experts have said that a holding in favor of Janus would be the most significant court decision affecting collective bargaining in decades.

Mark Janus, an employee at the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Human Services, asked the court last summer to overrule a 40-year-old Supreme Court decision. It found that public sector unions could require employees affected by their negotiations to pay so-called ‘agency fees,’ which have also been called ‘fair share fees.’

Those fees, approved by the court in the 1977 case Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, cover collective bargaining costs, such as contract negotiations, but are meant to exclude political advocacy.

Janus argued that his $45 monthly fee to the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees was unconstitutional. He said the fees infringed on his his first amendment rights, and that, in the case of public employees whose contract negotiations are with the government, the fees were a form of political advocacy.

He argued that there was little distinction, for instance, between requiring employees to fund unions that engage in political lobbying and requiring them to fund political groups such as the Democratic Party.

The union argued that the agency fees prevent free-riding from employees who benefit from the union’s negotiations. AFSCME argued that, because it was obligated by law to represent the interests of both union and non-union members, the fees were a way for employees to pay their fair share for contact negotiations from which they benefited.

The case is the third in five years on the question of fair share fees to come before the Supreme Court.”

For the rest of the story, visit CNBC here.

Subscribe to the Nations largest union directory and blog site!


By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: Senders Communications Group, 21201 Victory Blvd. #235, Canoga Park, CA, 91303, http://www.sendersgroup.com. You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the SafeUnsubscribe® link, found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Constant Contact

Featured Posts:

Half a Century Later, Luis Valdez and El Teatro Campesino Continue to Agitate

In 1965, Luis Valdez returned to his hometown of Delano to pitch an idea to United Farm Workers leader Cesar ...
Read More

Civil Rights Pioneer Reverend James Lawson Jr. Receives UCLA’s Highest Honor

The man who Martin Luther King once praised as the “leading theorist and strategist for non-violence in the world" has ...
Read More
The Westin

Leave a Reply