Janus v. AFSCME headed to US Supreme Court
Tuesday, Jun 6, 2017 - Posted by Rich Miller
* From the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation…
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will be asked to hear a case that could free government workers from being forced to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment.
Forcing government employees to pay money to union officials to keep their jobs violates the First Amendment, argues plaintiff Mark Janus in the case Janus v. AFSCME. Janus is a child support specialist from Illinois, whose lawsuit was brought by attorneys from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the Liberty Justice Center.
The request for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear this case follows a March ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, which upheld forced dues and fees based on the Supreme Court’s 1977 Abood v. Detroit Board of Education decision. The plaintiffs in Janus v. AFSCME argue that Abood was wrongly decided and should be overturned, especially in light of subsequent U.S. Supreme Court rulings that have applied strict scrutiny to mandatory union fees.
Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, issued the following statement about the case:
“For too long, millions of workers across the nation have been forced to pay dues and fees into union coffers as a condition of working for their own government. Requiring public servants to subsidize union officials’ speech is incompatible with the First Amendment. This petition asks the Supreme Court to take up this case and revisit a nearly half-century-old mistake that led to an anomaly in First Amendment jurisprudence. By applying the principles the Court laid out in two recent cases brought for workers by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys – Knox and Harris – the Court can end the injustice of public sector forced dues by the end of next term.”
Jacob Huebert, senior attorney at the Liberty Justice Center, described what is at stake in the Janus case:
“People shouldn’t be forced to surrender their First Amendment right to decide for themselves what organizations they will and won’t support just because they decide to work for the state, their local government or a public school. This case gives the Supreme Court an opportunity to restore to millions of American workers the right to choose whether to support a union with their money.”
Mark Janus works for the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services and is forced to send part of his paycheck to AFSCME. He said, explaining why he brought the case:
“I went into this line of work because I care about kids. But just because I care about kids doesn’t mean I also want to support a government union. Unfortunately, I have no choice. To keep my job at the state, I have to pay monthly fees to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, a public employee union that claims to ‘represent’ me. I’m filing this case on behalf of all government employees who want to serve their community or their state without having to pay a union first.”
In addition to Janus v. AFSCME, six other ongoing cases brought by workers with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation are challenging public sector forced dues. These cases represent the full spectrum of public employees, including teachers in Pennsylvania, school aides in Kentucky, university professors in Massachusetts, medical center technicians in California, school electricians in New York and state troopers in Connecticut.
Janus’ case is the first of that group to reach the Supreme Court. The case is on track for the Supreme Court to decide whether to hear it at its first conference of the term beginning in the fall. If four justices agree, the Supreme Court could announce soon after its September 25 conference that it will hear the case.
Janus works for DCFS as a child support specialist.
* AP…
AFSCME President Lee Saunders called the case an effort to chip away at the power of unions “to negotiate a fair return on our work, provide for our families, and lift up the concerns of all working families.”
Last year, the issue split the court’s liberal and conservative members during oral arguments in the California case. Several conservative justices, including Scalia, seemed ready to scrap Abood. They said bargaining issues like teacher salaries, merit promotions and class sizes are all intertwined with political issues involving the size of state budgets and how taxpayer dollars should be spent.
While unions avoided a loss after Scalia’s death, Gorsuch is seen as equally conservative, though he has not expressed views on the issue of fair share union fees.
For unions, the loss of millions in fees would reduce their power to bargain for higher wages and benefits for government employees.
“This is an aggressive litigation campaign aimed at undermining unions’ ability to operate by forcing them to represent people for free,” said Benjamin Sachs, a professor at Harvard Law School specializing in labor law.
- City Zen - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 9:37 am:
Counting down to AFSCME-SEIU merger in 3,2,1…
- COPN - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 9:46 am:
Here’s decent background, albeit with an editorial slant, on the prior Illinois case that arguably started things down the current path:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/05/supreme-court-harris-quinn-unions-right-to-work/
- cdog - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 9:48 am:
This is a good question that should be answered by SCOTUS.
It is especially relevant in the light of today’s news.
The AFL-CIO, with their dues-fed money, power, and influence, are getting ready to anoint the Dem nominee for Governor.
And this, is all before the public even has a chance to really start understanding the field of candidates.
Just think of all the conservative AFSCME members that just funded Pritzker’s coronation. Seems un-American, and even a little sick.
- chi - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 9:49 am:
Benjamin Sachs’ quote captures the whole issue in a nutshell.
- Bella - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 9:50 am:
What should an employee pay to the unions who are FORCED to represent that employee ?
Should they get the benefits of the union for free ?
If the employee doesn’t pay for the services they should not receive those services . The union should not be FORCED to provide services for employees who dont contribute. The union should not have to utilize resources paid for by other employees for employees that don’t pay
- Grandson of Man - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 9:51 am:
I’m assuming Janus is a long-time state employee. If so, he got very good pay, benefits and job protections for many years. Does he think that stuff grows on trees? Plus, if he’s been a state employee all these years, while getting the benefits of a contract, how has he been hurt enough to have standing before a court?
“Unfortunately, I have no choice.”
He has choices. He can work serving children in non-union jobs. But he apparently hasn’t. That contract has been very, very good to him.
- Hottot - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 9:51 am:
If employees won’t be required to pay fair share fees, why should unions be required to represent them at a union facility?
- AC - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 9:55 am:
It’s fascinating to watch the folks who complain about freeloaders spend millions defending freeloaders.
- Obamas Puppy - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 9:56 am:
Rauner just got the “OHHH FACE”.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 9:58 am:
Sad this is even going to court. Give Mark Janus want he wants. Eliminate his union dues, his health care package, his pension package and cut his pay 30%. Why can’t we let him voluntarily negotiate a separate side deal for 50% on the dollar?
I hate to see him treated so unfairly. To think his pay is being clipped $25 a paycheck to pay for the negotiations for the contract. Those contract negotiations should be paid for with good will and fairy dust.
- Iron - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 10:00 am:
Funny how they don’t want the union dues but want union pay and benefits.
- Trump2020 - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 10:00 am:
It’s funny/ironic hearing all of the democrats complain about some people trying to get something for free.
- City Zen - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 10:01 am:
==Benjamin Sachs’ quote captures the whole issue in a nutshell.==
Not exactly expecting a nuanced opinion from the SEIU’s former Assistant General Counsel.
- Chicago 20 - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 10:07 am:
Brought to you by the Bruce Rauner’s buddies the Koch brothers who are also behind the Illinois Policy Institute and ALEC.
- Mike Cirrincione - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 10:07 am:
I get a kick out of the Marketing Slogan….Right to Work. Has it been illegal to work in the United States of America? Its a lie.
Used to be 18 years did NOT have the Right to Vote. We Amended the Constitution of the United States of America and….voila….18 year olds now have the Right to Vote.
This is like the other Marketing Slogan. Pro-Life. Roe V Wade, which has its roots in Griswold V Conn is about a Constitutional Right to Marital Privacy. Prior to Griswold, the Wife had to bring a note from the Husband to buy condoms at the Drug Store.
- RNUG - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 10:09 am:
Whatever the outcome, expect it to be a 5-4 decision.
Personally, if fair share is an option and the union has a separate organization for politics lobbying, then I don’t see it as a free speech violation. The individual is not financially supporting the union’s lobbying efforts and the individual is free to support any political effort they want to.
The one sticking point I do see is, I believe, as a “fair share” member, the individual has no vote for union management. That may have to change to where there is greater split, with two full sets of seperate management with more of a Chinese wall between them, one organization strictly for workplace benefits that both full and “fair share” members can vote on, and one for lobbying that only full members can vote on.
If I was a lawyer, I would argue that the current arrangement didn’t cross the line, but if the court believed it did, there is a simple technical fix by totally separating the two functions into two separate organizations. Other Not For Profit organizations have taken this approach to avoid violating various laws, and it could work here also.
- Joe M - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 10:21 am:
My free speech is constantly violated by the tax dollars I have to contribute for government actions I disagree with. Can I quit contributing taxes for those things? No, because the majority rules in the U.S. When the majority votes to be represented by a Union, then the minority still gets represented by that union. And they shouldn’t get that representation for free.
- Nick Name - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 10:26 am:
AFSCME, and all of organized labor, is going to have to really step up its PR game, because right now Koch-funded, anti-union propaganda is running circles around the unions. Nobody, but nobody, is going to care about a Harvard egghead’s opinion that “This is an aggressive litigation campaign aimed at undermining unions’ ability to operate by forcing them to represent people for free.”
Labor, you can do better.
To the post: “… a March ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, which upheld forced dues and fees…”
Fair share fees are not dues, and no one is forced to be a member of a union. But if you choose not to be in a union while holding a position that is part of the collective bargaining unit, then in justice you still owe the cost of negotiating the salary and benefits you enjoy. That’s called paying your “fair share.” Get it?
Otherwise, you’re a freeloader, and I’m sure Mark Janus, “forced to send part of his paycheck to AFSCME,” is crying all the way to the bank, the poor dear.
“To keep my job at the state, I have to pay monthly fees to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, a public employee union that claims to ‘represent’ me.”
Mark, I’ll type slow. AFSCME does not “claim” to represent you. It does, even though you have exercised your right to decline union membership, because you still receive union-scale pay and benefits. If AFSCME membership bothers you so much, you could have, you know, transferred into a non-bargaining unit position, instead of literally making a federal case out of it, thus putting the salaries and livelihoods of millions of hard working union members across the country at risk.
But guess what? Careful what you ask for, because if you win in SCOTUS, you still lose, because undermining unions’ ability to negotiate decent wages and benefits includes the wages and benefits you currently enjoy. Enjoy.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 10:29 am:
Janus makes $71k. Didn’t get that salary without the union
- City Zen - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 10:36 am:
==I get a kick out of the Marketing Slogan….Right to Work. Has it been illegal to work in the United States of America? Its a lie.==
Could say the same about “working families” representing low wage workers or civil servants. Does a pediatrician or computer programmer not work?
- Just Curious - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 10:42 am:
I posted this yesterday in reference to winning against Madigan but it also seems to apply here as well.
I believe that this whole Rauner being guv thing stems from one of those rich frat boys bets like the one in the Akroyd/Murphy Trading Places movie. Rauner bet his moneyed friends that for a $1.00 wager he could take AFSCME down. Remember its only about winning.
- Nick Name - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 10:42 am:
Anonymous @10:29 a.m.: Like I said, I’m sure he’s crying all the way to the bank.
- Mike Cirrincione - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 10:45 am:
Could we have Fair Share with pricing on consumer products? Its a violation of my First Amendment Rights for my money to go to corporations that lobby against my own personal best interests.
- Skeptic - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 10:49 am:
“It’s funny/ironic hearing all of the democrats complain about some people trying to get something for free.” It’s funny/ironic hearing all of the Republicans arguing some people should get something for free.
- City Zen - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 10:59 am:
==Could we have Fair Share with pricing on consumer products?==
You already do. It’s called the choice not to buy the product.
- Dublin - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 11:09 am:
==You already do. It’s called the choice not to buy the product.==
There are several ‘products’ I have to buy that I do not have a choice in: Ameren, specifically.
Janus has the “choice” to not work for the state - or at the very least in a union position.
- AC - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 11:11 am:
==You already do. It’s called the choice not to buy the product.==
Great, I’ll cancel my monopoly gas and electric utility as well as my only option for high speed internet and choose one of the alternatives that doesn’t actually exist.
- Honeybear - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 11:14 am:
Cdog- they only funded Pritzker of they are AFSCME PEOPLE (our PAC). By law only People money can go to political causes. But of course you new that.
- Pritzker Logic - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 11:15 am:
=here is a simple technical fix by totally separating the two functions into two separate organizations. =
They already have, PEOPLE (Public Employees Organized for Political and Legislative Equality) is AFSCME’s separate political action committee where they endorse candidates etc.
Contribution and participation is voluntary.
- Steward As Well.... - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 11:17 am:
Nick Name sums it up quite well. In my experience with fair share individuals their salaries tend to be on the higher pay scale range. Easily able to afford a few extra bucks to be a union member. I had one tell me one time he could not afford the extra six bucks every two weeks to become a member. Ironically he spent more than that everyday at the little local hole in the wall restaurant at my agency on over priced crappy food. Go figure….
- California Guy - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 11:21 am:
Title of this post is a little misleading. It actually isn’t confirmed that SCOTUS will hear the case. Probably likely though. R.I.P. agency fee.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 11:29 am:
Again, nobody is forced to take a job. Don’t like paying union dues? Don’t take a union job. Problem solved.
- Robert the 1st - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 11:31 am:
All business should pay dues to the GOP backing Chamber of Commerce. Nobody is forced to start a business.
All gun owners should pay dues to the GOP backing NRA. Nobody is forced to own a gun.
Both organizations supposedly benefit both groups. Sounds different when it’s the other side huh?
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 11:37 am:
Robert the 1st, that is, without a doubt, the dumbest comment you’ve ever posted here.
- Robert the 1st - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 11:40 am:
What’s the difference? Both are organizations that represent and champion the rights for certain groups. Not everyone in that group contributes because they might disagree with the politics of those organizations. Just like some government employees might not agree with the politics of their union. Even on issues like pay increases.
- MIA - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 12:01 pm:
No comment from the governor?
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 12:04 pm:
===No comment from the governor?===
… and in the era of Trump ruining his chances with the courts by tweet or comment, I’d be a bit… surprised… to hear from the governor. Now.
- Puddintaine - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 12:06 pm:
Since we’re speaking of unions and money. Teamsters fully funded their members healthcare on their last contract. Fully, and with comparable dues to afscme.
Afscme is a larger union, and yet we were told to save our own pennies for The Big Strike. Where’s the money? It’s not being spent on member healthcare. Why isn’t there a strike fund available?
- RNUG - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 12:44 pm:
== All gun owners should pay dues to the GOP backing NRA. Nobody is forced to own a gun. ==
You might want to rethink that statement. There are two entities: the actual NRA and the separate NRA-ILA which is the legislative lobbying arm that members can make separate donations to.
- Honeybear - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 12:46 pm:
Puddentaine, defending the union is incredibly expensive. Each Supreme Court case costs 1-3 million
It costs I think 3000 to just Withdraw a third level grievance 15-25k just to fight it to fourth
Rauner is bleeding us dry by legally fighting everything.
Brother if you only new how much is being done on your behalf. Go to a member meeting. Get involved. Run for a leadership position. We are a democratic institution. Officers are elected. Then you’ll see the titanic amount of work done. At the local level that is mostly volunteer unpaid work. The vast majority of it. It’s like a gym membership. You have to show up and work at it. I give a ton of my free time helping the union out. But start by showing up to a member meeting and listen up at the thousands of dollars being spent on your behalf.
- RNUG - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 12:47 pm:
== All gun owners should pay dues to the GOP backing NRA. Nobody is forced to own a gun. ==
In Illinois, you don’t have to belong tot he NRA to own a gun. But all legal gun owners have to pay “dues” to the State in the form of obtaining a FOID in order to exercise their Federal Constitutional Right. Let’s do away with those “dues” also!
- RNUG - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 12:48 pm:
- Pritzker Logic - @ 11:15 am:
But is there enough of a “Chinese Wall” between the two entities? I’m asking because I really don’t know …
- Huh? - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 12:52 pm:
Puddintaine - The transfers funded the health insurance with the employer share of the insurance premiums.
Regarding the fair share fees, the teamsters have some text in the contract that an employee covered by the contract can object to the fair share fee on religious grounds. If the objection is upheld, the fees can be redirected to a non-religious charitable organization.
I don’t have access to the AFSCME contract, but I would think they have similar language.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 1:12 pm:
==What’s the difference?==
If you have to ask that question then you’re more clueless than I thought on this subject.
Nobody is forced to take a union job. Period. End of story. I’m not sure why that concept is so difficult to understand. No amount of twisted argument is going to change that fact.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 1:27 pm:
Odd when your “senior attorney” has been practicing just six years. A wealth of experience no doubt.
- CapnCrunch - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 1:34 pm:
“What should an employee pay to the unions who are FORCED to represent that employee ?”
Why wouldn’t an employee voluntarily contribute dues when union membership obviously provides so many benefits?
- say no to big government - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 1:34 pm:
I hope the US Supreme court takes this case and ends forced dues paying. I don’t see it as unions being forced to represent people for free. AFSCME doesn’t truly represent those who pay fair share (it might say so in public, but in reality AFSCME despises fair share people — I know from first-hand experience). I don’t think a union should be required to represent those who pay no dues, and I don’t think a person should be entitled to union-negotiated benefits if he pays no union dues. Unions should not be entitled to claim certain positions as being union positions. Let the laborers decide for themselves if they want to be represented or not. Employers do not have to offer the same benefits to all employees and if they choose to offer union-negotiated benefits to those not in the union, that is the employer’s prerogative.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 1:35 pm:
===Why wouldn’t an employee voluntarily contribute dues when union membership obviously provides so many benefits? ===
By that logic, we should make all utility and property tax bills optional.
- HangingOn - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 1:41 pm:
==AFSCME doesn’t truly represent those who pay fair share==
Funny, because they get the pay raises the same as full share. Unlike my co-workers who were forced out of the Union. Even if they despise fair share they were still getting them the same benefits.
==Unions should not be entitled to claim certain positions as being union positions==
Is that how it works? Because my old boss (now retired) blamed CMS for making him unable to be in the Union anymore. All I have to go by is what he said though, so it could be the Union refused to bargain for him. *shrug*
- Siruisly XM - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 2:05 pm:
“This is an aggressive litigation campaign aimed at undermining unions’ ability to operate by forcing them to represent people for free,”
No, No - some people don’t want the union negotiating wages, pension payments, labor agreements that take into account seniority over accomplishments…The union shouldn’t be forced to represent/bargain for employees and those employees shouldn’t have to have the union ‘represent/bargain’ for them.
—He has choices. He can work serving children in non-union jobs. But he apparently hasn’t. That contract has been very, very good to him.—
He doesn’t really have choices - he wants to work for the state he lives in helping children. He has to give to a private group that actively supports political ideas he disagrees with.
—Give Mark Janus want he wants. Eliminate his union dues, his health care package, his pension package and cut his pay 30%. Why can’t we let him voluntarily negotiate a separate side deal for 50% on the dollar?—
Eliminate his mandatory obligation to pay into a failing pension system, eliminate the seniority rules, add a 401k which will allow him to move careers if he chooses…
—Whatever the outcome, expect it to be a 5-4 decision.—
we can agree on that..lol
–People money can go to political causes. But of course you new that.–
theres a lot of gray area in the law.. to say that the union in itself isn’t political is disingenuous
—Nobody is forced to take a union job. Period. End of story. I’m not sure why that concept is so difficult to understand. No amount of twisted argument is going to change that fact.—
Maybe coerced would be a more accurate word to use. People who want to take a job with the state where they can make a difference either have to suck it up and pay the union or keep searching for a job.. no ‘force’ lol
—AFSCME doesn’t truly represent those who pay fair share (it might say so in public, but in reality AFSCME despises fair share people — I know from first-hand experience).—
ding ding - spot on commentary right there..
- Graduated College Student - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 2:13 pm:
===Unions should not be entitled to claim certain positions as being union positions. Let the laborers decide for themselves if they want to be represented or not. ===
Here, let me tell you a little something. If you don’t have certain positions proclaimed to be union positions, at the end of the day, no position will be a union position because the union-held positions will be eliminated through the available legal channels and any employee claiming union representation probably wouldn’t get hired.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 2:15 pm:
Why wouldn’t an employee voluntarily contribute dues when union membership obviously provides so many benefits …
They do provide benefits . Many years ago I voluntarily accepted a mid level supervisory position that was non union. At that point my experience was that non union supervisors were granted basically similar benefits than their union coworkers. Well guess what. A new governor was elected and he no longer granted those same benefits to non union employees. My pay was frozen for many years as I sat and watched my subordinates continue to get pay raises I was forced to take unpaid furlough days while my union coworkers did not. I had to deplete the little vacation time I had saved for a rainy day. While my union coworkers did not
I am thankfully back in a union position and will not take another non union
So for the likes of Janus. Be careful what you wish for. Don’t take Your $71k salary for granted . the union had a part in getting that for you and without them you may not get to keep it
- Nick Name - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 2:18 pm:
“Unions should not be entitled to claim certain positions as being union positions.”
Unions do not decide or claim that. If, under labor law, a position or positions are eligible to be in a union, the employees vote on it, with secret ballots. If the vote is in favor of joining the union, then it goes before the labor relations board, which (absent any objections) certifies the vote.
Now the union may lobby employees to vote in favor of union membership, but no union is “entitled to claim certain positions as being union positions.”
Learn the facts before you embarrass yourself.
- Nick Name - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 2:23 pm:
“He has to give to a private group that actively supports political ideas he disagrees with.”
Federal law prohibits union dues from being used for political lobbying. And fair share fees are used solely to pay the cost of negotiating salaries and benefits for BU positions.
And the pension crisis was not created by AFSCME.
- Steward As Well.... - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 2:35 pm:
Nick Name continues to bat 1000. Impressive, who is this masked man. (woman)
- Robert the 1st - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 2:35 pm:
=And fair share fees are used solely to pay the cost of negotiating salaries and benefits=
I believe that one of the arguments is salaries and benefits for government employees is political since it’s public dollars.
- Siruisly XM - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 2:41 pm:
—Federal law prohibits union dues from being used for political lobbying. And fair share fees are used solely to pay the cost of negotiating salaries and benefits for BU positions.—
Robert the 1sts comment is good. I’ll add that the union is political in nature - and every action is political - not just the lobbying.
–And the pension crisis was not created by AFSCME.–
Many actors are in the pension crisis - it was a collaborate effort to get us that deep..
But my point wasn’t that the pension crisis was created by them - interesting you went there though, it was that AFSCME is creating an individual pension crisis for every employee by advocating against 401k options…
- Skeptic - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 2:41 pm:
“I believe that one of the arguments is salaries and benefits for government employees is political since it’s public dollars.” So how do you square that with Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois?
- Honeybear - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 3:37 pm:
Robert the 1rst congrats you just hit my number one pet peeve.
When you pay your taxes that money is no longer yours. It is the governments money. That money is then used/distributed according to law/statute derived by democratic process by democratically elected representatives/officials
IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY ANYMORE
If you want to have a say you engage in the democratic process as a citizen by voting/public comment or soliciting your rep/official or you run for office.
Public employees/government workers don’t work for you. Elected representatives/ officials do work for you in a small sense in that you voted for them and you are part of the community.
But public employees don’t work for you
Thank loving God.
- Nick Name - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 3:44 pm:
“=And fair share fees are used solely to pay the cost of negotiating salaries and benefits=
I believe that one of the arguments is salaries and benefits for government employees is political since it’s public dollars.”
What matters is not what you believe, but what the law says.
“Robert the 1sts comment is good. I’ll add that the union is political in nature - and every action is political - not just the lobbying.”
Again, what matters is what the law says. And people do not lose their collective bargaining rights just because they’re public employees.
“–And the pension crisis was not created by AFSCME.–
Many actors are in the pension crisis - it was a collaborate effort to get us that deep..”
Union members — and all government employees — pay into their respective pension funds. It’s withheld from every paycheck. The general assembly has for decades not met its obligation to pay the state’s share. “Collaborative effort” is nonsense and manifestly not true.
“But my point wasn’t that the pension crisis was created by them - interesting you went there though, it was that AFSCME is creating an individual pension crisis for every employee by advocating against 401k options… ”
Article 13, Section 5 of the state constitution. You can look it up.
- Robert the 1st - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 3:52 pm:
I think you misunderstood me. We agree it becomes the government’s money. Which is exactly why government wages and benefits are political. A state worker might personally benefit if the union gets her a pay raise, but she might have personally believed that government money should have been used in a different manner to help the needy, or whatever. She is forced to pay for politics she disagrees with.
- don the legend - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 4:01 pm:
What is often left out of the public employee union debate is the uncomfortable (some say) fact that union contracts are ultimately funded through budgets that are voted on by the elected officials whose campaigns may be partially funded by the very unions that benefit from said contract. The conflict of interest is glaring.
- Siruisly XM - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 4:08 pm:
–Again, what matters is what the law says–
At the heart of the case is whether “what the law says” is actually capable of being applied. I think people on the pro-worker choice side of the debate will say its not being applied and can’t be applied.
–Article 13, Section 5 of the state constitution. You can look it up. –
I’m pretty familiar with this. where does it say that employees have to join a pension system and the state can’t offer a 401k option?
- Honeybear - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 4:27 pm:
Don quick look up how much unions gave in Quinn vs Rauner and then compare that to the much much larger sum that companies/wealthy company owners gave.
Rauner funded 90% of the ILGOP. AFSCME money comes from individuals donating 4$ a month through our pay checks which is totally voluntary and separate from our member dues.
You are just hell bent on bringing working folk down
- Arthur Andersen - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 4:40 pm:
Mr. Janus has worked for the State since the late 1980’s with at least one break in service.
- Siruisly XM - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 4:54 pm:
–totally voluntary–
did you wink when you wrote that?
- Nick Name - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 5:00 pm:
“–totally voluntary–
did you wink when you wrote that?”
Honeybear wrote: “totally voluntary and separate from our member dues.”
Learn to read.
Under federal law, union dues may not be used for political activity. AFSCME members may voluntarily opt to donate extra for political lobbying. It is voluntary. Not coerced or forced.
- California Guy - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 5:00 pm:
@ Robert the 1st’s argument is generally in line with the original complaint in Janus v. AFSCME.
Janus is dissatisfied with how SEIU has acted in recent collective bargaining. Janus feels that SEIU doesn’t really appreciate the financial crisis that the State is in. Pushing for pay raises during a budget crisis, etc.
Janus also disagrees with SEIU on seniority and workplace rules from a political policy point of view. Just speculating here, but Janus probably views the seniority issue as a cause of inefficiency.
SCOTUS has already acknowledged that during collective bargaining, the union can take positions that have “powerful political and civic consequences” (Knox v. SEIU). The Janus case is just reaffirming that collective bargaining is political and that being forced to fund it violates the 1A.
- Pritzker Logic - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 5:22 pm:
RNUG - - Pritzker Logic - @ 11:15 am:
=But is there enough of a “Chinese Wall” between the two entities? I’m asking because I really don’t know …=
I always assumed that there was. I haven’t read enough of the Janus case documents to know if there is an allegation of violations - using fair share dues for PEOPLE activities. I do know that it is a separate deduction and goes to a separate account. I also know PEOPLE representatives meet separately and interviews political candidates for endorsements. There may be some overlap in union member activities such as newsletters etc.
I am not aware of any fair share member funds being used to pay for PEOPLE activities.
- Curmudgeon - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 6:17 pm:
More than 30 years ago I had occasion to interact with the litigant in his position at DCCA.
My personal opinion at the time, based on his actions, was that he was a backstabber. I also note that after all this time, he is still at about the same paygrade, so I have to wonder if he ever got any promotions …
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 6:46 pm:
==collective bargaining is political and that being forced to fund it violates the 1A.==
Except you aren’t forced to fund it. You don’t have to take a union job. To suggest someone’s 1st Amendment rights are being violated is silly
- Robert the 1st - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 7:14 pm:
That’s such a weak position. You certainly don’t have to get a gay wedding cake from a Christian bakery, but the courts already ruled them refusing service is a Constitutional violation. Because you “don’t have to” doesn’t change how rights are enforced.
- Robert the 1st - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 7:17 pm:
Demoralized- would you argue black people “don’t have to” eat at southern diners?
Only Democrats or pro-union people can work government jobs?
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 7:20 pm:
===Democrats or pro-union people can work government jobs?===
Some state positions are Union positions.
You don’t have to take those positions in state government.
- Robert the 1st - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 7:24 pm:
Some diners weren’t segregated. You didn’t have to eat at the ones that were to get served. Not how Constitutional rights work.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 7:31 pm:
===Some diners weren’t segregated. You didn’t have to eat at the ones that were to get served. Not how Constitutional rights work.===
… and yet, they’re talking about Fair Share in this case.
Hmm.
- Robert the 1st - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 7:33 pm:
Which they are arguing is unconstitutional. Forget whether it is or isn’t. The whole “you don’t have to” argument is completely invalid here.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 7:35 pm:
===The whole “you don’t have to” argument is completely invalid here.===
I’d cite Abood…
- Cvl Spk - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 7:40 pm:
If you want to work in Education in the state you are forced to pay fair share. There are few choices if you are a K-8 teacher. The single largest employers in many areas are public sector ones. Those dues paid for the sorry state we are in with high property taxes and massive pension debt.
I would not call that having a choice comrade.
- Robert the 1st - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 7:42 pm:
Abood didn’t determine teachers could have their Constitutional rights violated because they could work somewhere else. They determined their rights weren’t being violated. So once again “you don’t have to” is invalid in any context.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 7:42 pm:
===If you want to work in Education in the state you are forced to pay fair share. There are few choices if you are a K-8 teacher.===
You can’t be forced and have choices too.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 7:45 pm:
===They determined their rights weren’t being violated.===
Are you more worried about Unions or your rights?
- Siriusly XM - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 8:00 pm:
—Under federal law, —
current federal law…which is potentially being take up by the supreme court.. jeez
–learn to read–
I focused on the word totally cause its not totally voluntary.
Under your logic, taxes are voluntary, as long as I choose not to get a job. Or buy food. or own property. or buy (or not buy) health insurance.
- Robert the 1st - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 8:03 pm:
A personal question? I actually learned from you to not assume someone here agrees with the argument they’re presenting. But some things don’t work. Like “you don’t have to” when discussing Constitutional rights.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 8:09 pm:
- Robert the 1st -
With great respect, honestly.
Are you more worried about Unions or your rights?
- Robert the 1st - Tuesday, Jun 6, 17 @ 11:00 pm:
I’m not naive. Of course the financial backers here are more interested in weakening public unions than anything about the 1st Amendment. I personally believe it’s a stretch of an argument to be presented to the USSC on agency fees. But on principle and logic, it holds. That’s all I was saying. Actually, I was saying less.