* Fox News…
The plaintiff whose 2018 case led to a Supreme Court ruling that mandatory public union agency fees for nonmembers were unconstitutional is now asking the high court to force the union that represented him to return a portion of the money it collected before that decision.
In this most recent case, Janus v. AFSCME III, plaintiff Mark Janus is asking for the union to pay back fees it took from his paycheck before the landmark ruling in his 2018 case. He claims that the Supreme Court’s ruling should be retroactive, echoing other claims that have been made in federal court, including a sweeping class action that was filed in California last year. […]
“Mark Janus is just one of many public employees whose money was illegally taken by government unions,” said Patrick Hughes, Liberty Justice Center president and co-founder. Liberty Justice Center is the other group working on Janus’ case. […]
“The Supreme Court agreed that the union taking money from nonmembers was wrong but the union still has the money it illegally garnished from my paycheck,” Janus said in a press release through the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, one of the organizations handling his case. […]
“Until [the Janus decision] said otherwise, AFSCME had a legal right to receive and spend fair-share fees collected from nonmembers as long as it complied with state law … It did not demonstrate bad faith when it followed these rules,” the Seventh Circuit said in its opinion.
* Response…
AFSCME General Counsel Judith Rivlin: “Working people have won every single case thrown at them by these special interest groups, and if judges continue to weigh these cases on the facts and merits, the corporate interests behind them will continue to fail in their efforts to further rig the system in their favor.”
AFSCME Council 31 Executive Director Roberta Lynch: “Courts have repeatedly ruled in this and similar cases that in setting fees for representation provided to non-members, the unions involved acted in good faith based on a US Supreme Court ruling in place since 1977 and repeatedly affirmed in the ensuing decades. Mark Janus received wage increases, health insurance coverage, vacation time and other benefits that AFSCME negotiated during his tenure in state government. He never once failed to accept such improvements in his working conditions, nor did he ever object to paying the related fees—until he became the plaintiff in Bruce Rauner’s court case against AFSCME. This prolonged litigation is nothing but another political attack on working people, and on Janus’s part, a greedy grab for more.”
- Annonin - Tuesday, Mar 10, 20 @ 11:49 am:
had a chance to ask Mark if he planned to give back wage increases and benefit improvements if he wins this phase. He did not think so. Need to look up IPI tax return to see what his new salary is
- RNUG - Tuesday, Mar 10, 20 @ 11:50 am:
Don’t see this as a winning case for Janus. Previous rulings allowed the fee, so AFSCME was in compliance until the final ruling in Janus.
- a drop in - Tuesday, Mar 10, 20 @ 11:52 am:
“The Tower Formerly Known As Sears”?
- a drop in - Tuesday, Mar 10, 20 @ 11:53 am:
Wrong post, sorry.
- JB13 - Tuesday, Mar 10, 20 @ 11:54 am:
I mean, OK, but does AFSCME really want to get into a rhetorical war that involves the phrase “greedy grab for more?”
- Perrid - Tuesday, Mar 10, 20 @ 12:03 pm:
Everyone was following what SCOTUS had said was the law, in good faith. It would be shocking if Janus prevailed here.
- City Zen - Tuesday, Mar 10, 20 @ 12:08 pm:
In an alternate universe, Scalia doesn’t die during Friedrichs v. CTA and AFSCME is in the same position as they are today, sans the Janus punching bag.
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Tuesday, Mar 10, 20 @ 12:23 pm:
=== I mean, OK, but does AFSCME really want to get into a rhetorical war that involves the phrase “greedy grab for more?”===
Why not? Although I’m sure lawyers’ fees have already consumed whatever money was coming. So I doubt greed is the motivation, more like the sadism that comes from bludgeoning your opponent with a hammer when he is already down.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Mar 10, 20 @ 12:27 pm:
It’s one thing for the Supreme Court to rule in favor of Janus as they did, it’s another for the court to rule that previous rulings to his ask need to be “retroactive”.
It keeps labor angst in the courts and the news, but this would be a considerable leap with a ruling for Janus here.
- revvedup - Tuesday, Mar 10, 20 @ 12:29 pm:
SCOTUS is likely to decline the appeal without comment; the law pre-Janus is that clear, and Janus did not require retroactive refunds.
- Grandson of Man - Tuesday, Mar 10, 20 @ 12:32 pm:
Greedy grab is exactly right. Agency fees were legal until they weren’t.
“but does AFSCME really want to get into a rhetorical war that involves the phrase “greedy grab for more?”
Absolutely. Let’s talk about the last four-five years, when Rauner ripped off state workers while his income skyrocketed to hundreds of millions of dollars. Let’s also talk about the richest corporations getting a 14% raise every year, thanks to the Trump tax cuts, while state workers get a cumulative 11.5% COLA raise over four years along with higher healthcare costs.
- Nick Name - Tuesday, Mar 10, 20 @ 12:41 pm:
Maybe I’m optimistic, but I cannot see even the Court’s most conservative justices putting up with this nonsense. They ended fair share. If they meant for fair share employees to recover lost wages, they would have said so.
- Huh? - Tuesday, Mar 10, 20 @ 12:43 pm:
“it’s another for the court to rule that previous rulings”
When candidates for the SCOTUS are questioned by the Senate, they sometimes refer to “settled law” discussing a previous SC ruling. The thing about “settled law” is that it is settled until a bright shiny lawsuit comes along and the SC changes its mind.
- DuPage Saint - Tuesday, Mar 10, 20 @ 12:46 pm:
My wife worked in private sector for years qualified for social security. Then became a teacher. Gets TRS but no social security. Shouldn’t she at least get her money back?
- Candy Dogood - Tuesday, Mar 10, 20 @ 12:48 pm:
===but does AFSCME really want to get into a rhetorical war that involves the phrase “greedy grab for more?”===
While I am giving you a lot of credit by presuming you’re capable of processing information and forming a new opinion, when you take a gander at the salaries that public employees receive that are organized by AFSCME, it doesn’t really look much like a “cash grab.”
Across the board raises that — barely — keep up with inflation and insisting upon retirement benefits that would allow a comfortable retirement isn’t exactly a “greedy grab.”
But you do you, and continue to take for granted the progress that was achieved by others and gifted to you so that you could be conned into a view that is against your own best interests.
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Tuesday, Mar 10, 20 @ 1:28 pm:
===Shouldn’t she at least get her money back?===
If she worked for 30 years before becoming a teacher she should get all her social security money. If she worked between 21 and 29 years they take a partial reduction.
- Flapdoodle - Tuesday, Mar 10, 20 @ 1:37 pm:
DuPage Saint — So long as your wife qualified for Social Security, she’ll get some of it back. For those qualified to receive benefits, the “Windfall Elimination Provision” (WEP) establishes a sliding scale based on the number of “high earning years” that someone paid into Social Security. The more such years, the smaller the WEP penalty. I had the same situation and am now receiving pretty close to my full monthly entitlement. (Apologies if you already knew this.)
- Skeptic - Tuesday, Mar 10, 20 @ 1:47 pm:
And if they declare Red Light cameras illegal, do I get my traffic fines back?
- DuPage Saint - Tuesday, Mar 10, 20 @ 2:37 pm:
Thanks to people who responded. Guess I am back to social security. She worked and was told she had enough quarters working over 20 years but told take TRS or nothing. I guess I should triple check. Again thanks for those trying to help
- DuPage - Tuesday, Mar 10, 20 @ 2:58 pm:
@- Flapdoodle - Tuesday, Mar 10, 20 @ 1:37 pm:
===DuPage Saint — So long as your wife qualified for Social Security, she’ll get some of it back. For those qualified to receive benefits, the “Windfall Elimination Provision” (WEP) establishes a sliding scale based on the number of “high earning years” that someone paid into Social Security. The more such years, the smaller the WEP penalty. I had the same situation and am now receiving pretty close to my full monthly entitlement. (Apologies if you already knew this.)===
It is complicated, if she applied for SS only on her own record, it would be reduced but she would get some SS. However, if the reduced amount is less then half of her husbands SS amount, she would get exactly half her husbands amount, and zero amount based on her contributions to SS. Although, the lower paid spouse getting SS based on the higher of their own or half of their spouse’s SS earnings applies to everybody. Where a couple really loses out is when the higher paid spouse is subject to WEP, it drastically cuts their benefit, and the lower paid spouse because he/she gets half of the reduced amount. Anyone with many years under SS should be made aware of this. Anyone considering a teaching or other position with a non-SS tier2 pension should put pencil to paper and probably take a different job. Tier2=more money in then most will ever live long enough to collect. Previously earned SS=reduced by up to 80% by WEP. The school districts don’t tell teacher applicants about this, they would have a harder time getting or retaining teachers.
- Anon - Tuesday, Mar 10, 20 @ 3:10 pm:
Janus, and Janus alone, has a viable legal argument for return of funds taken at least from the date of his lawsuit and maybe backwards for a short period of time (if, for example, he protested the deduction of these funds).
- Evanston - Tuesday, Mar 10, 20 @ 3:10 pm:
I agree with RNUG
- jim - Tuesday, Mar 10, 20 @ 3:18 pm:
Why should he give his pay back and to whom should he give it.
He didn’t ask to join AFSCME, he didn’t want to join AFSCME. He was compelled by law to be a member of AFSCME’s bargaining unit. He was barred by law from making his own deal. It was like Social Security. Nobody asks, they order and there’s no appeal, at least there wasn’t until recent times.
- Honeybear - Tuesday, Mar 10, 20 @ 3:44 pm:
Then he shouldn’t get the deal AFSCME bargaining unit members get. He wouldn’t get didly squat. Go work for the State of Missouri and you’ll know what it’s like.
- Casey - Tuesday, Mar 10, 20 @ 4:03 pm:
If unions are so great, why are people forced to be in them ?
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Mar 10, 20 @ 4:06 pm:
=== why are people forced…===
No one is being forced into a union. You can choose any profession, some are union, others not.
If you think anyone is being forced, lol
Just don’t take that job.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Mar 10, 20 @ 4:16 pm:
- Honeybear
“Where you been?”
- jim - Tuesday, Mar 10, 20 @ 4:22 pm:
Then he shouldn’t get the deal AFSCME bargaining unit members get. He wouldn’t get didly squat. Go work for the State of Missouri and you’ll know what it’s like.
Poor Honeybear, she seems to miss the legal point that he was compelled by law to be in the bargaining unit. actually, I think she understands but prefers to pretend she doesn’t.
- City Zen - Tuesday, Mar 10, 20 @ 4:40 pm:
==Then he shouldn’t get the deal AFSCME bargaining unit members get.==
Exclusive. Bargaining. Rights.
All the labor experts on this board yet no one understands this concept.
- Fixer - Tuesday, Mar 10, 20 @ 5:51 pm:
Here’s the rub, Jim. Mark knew this was a union position when he applied. Knew it was a union position when he was hired. And knew it was union when he could have gone to the private sector and made a higher salary but wouldn’t have that pension you and yours are so keen to see taken away from state workers. Now I wonder, what could possibly have motivated him to apply for and accept a position he knew was union instead of a job that was not…
- Rabbit - Tuesday, Mar 10, 20 @ 6:31 pm:
What happens when government creates a monopoly on certain jobs and requires those jobs to be union?
University Professors?
SnowBird (Plow Driver)?
There is no guarantee that a private option can be forced to exist.
Some gigs just don’t have a Private Sector counterpart.
That alone should be reason for an opt out.
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Wednesday, Mar 11, 20 @ 6:15 am:
=== University Professors?, SnowBird (Plow Driver)?===
Those jobs DO have a private sector counterpart. And Janus could have done the same work for Aunt Martha’s. No one forced him to work for the State of Illinois.
- City Zen - Wednesday, Mar 11, 20 @ 9:06 am:
==No one forced him to work for the State of Illinois==
What AFSCME apprenticeship training program did Janus go through to get the job? Does AFSCME provide professional certifications after employment? Did Janus receive continuing education from AFSCME as well?
He works for the citizens of Illinois, not the union. State employees who want to join the union are welcome to do so. The ones that don’t should not be compelled. Either way, as long as they can perform their job duties as employees of the state (not union), and their paychecks come from the state (not union), why should citizens care about their affiliations or lack thereof?
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Mar 11, 20 @ 9:17 am:
=== ==No one forced him to work for the State of Illinois==
What AFSCME apprenticeship training program did Janus go through to get the job? Does AFSCME provide professional certifications after employment? Did Janus receive continuing education from AFSCME as well?===
Yeah.
You didn’t answer the question.
What, Janus was so helpless he couldn’t find another job, get training, go to school… without the union’s help?
LOL
Yeah, go with that.
Pathetic.
- 17% Solution - Thursday, Mar 12, 20 @ 8:36 am:
== he was compelled by law to be in the bargaining unit. ==
No he wasn’t. He could have worked somewhere else. No law compels you to work for any certain employer. But once you do, you agree to that employer’s term, it might be wearing a uniform, not smoking marijuana, working on weekends or joining a union.