Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** SEIU Local 1, EMILY’s List back Lipinski opponent
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 - Manar responds *** Rauner heaps praise on facility after vetoing its funding
Posted in:
* From the Illinois Policy Institute’s former project, the Illinois News Network…
The plaintiff in the U.S. Supreme Court case Janus vs. AFSCME is responding to critics, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, who call him and others who don’t want to be forced to pay fees to a union “free riders.”
The bishops filed an amicus, or friend of the court, brief last month siding with the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees over a worker who doesn’t want to be forced to pay fees to a union he doesn’t agree with. It cites a Catholic Church social doctrine from 1891 that called for workers associations to defend worker rights.
Liberty Justice Center Director of Litigation Jacob Huebert, who represents plaintiff Mark Janus in the case, didn’t understand why the bishops would file such a brief.
“I don’t know why,” Huebert said. “I don’t know why they would be against freedom of association when that, of course, works to their benefit and everybody else’s when they chose to advocate the things that they advocate.” […]
The bishops brief siding with the union said they’ve long supported the right of workers to collectively bargain and the right is weakened by right-to-work laws.
A “misguided effort to protect one individual from government coercion would leave only individuals to stand against government (or economic) coercion,” the bishops’ filing said. It also said ruling in favor of Janus would create a free rider problem that would weaken unions. […]
“Who’s the real free rider here?” Janus said. “[AFSCME is] taking my money, and thousands of other government workers. So who’s getting the free money here? They’re taking it out of my wallet and putting it in theirs without my asking and without my permission. That’s what I consider wrong. That I consider coercion.”
Also, I need a better moniker for the INN. Any ideas?
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 10:18 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** SEIU Local 1, EMILY’s List back Lipinski opponent
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 - Manar responds *** Rauner heaps praise on facility after vetoing its funding
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
As a white male, I think Ministry of Truth is appropriate.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 10:21 am
I vote for the Don’t Have the Guts to Criticize Rauner News Network.
Comment by Osborne Smith III Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 10:23 am
How about I-Ne-Ne
Comment by BIgLou Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 10:25 am
===So who’s getting the free money here?===
I guess he just expects to receive services and representation for free?
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 10:27 am
Illin’
Huebert is so deliberately obtuse.
Comment by Henry Francis Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 10:28 am
God bless the bishops on this one.
I like to imagine Rauner lying to Cupich played at least some role in this filing.
Too bad the conservative Catholics on SCOTUS will only listen to the bishops on restricting access to contraceptive medical care where it aligns with their political agenda and not anything else.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 10:31 am
==That I consider coercion==
Did somebody coerce you to take the job? Don’t take the job and then whine about the requirements after. If you don’t like it then you shouldn’t have taken the job.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 10:31 am
BTIA Network?
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 10:32 am
Illinois Nitwit Network?
Comment by Honeybadger Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 10:33 am
Illinois No-nothing Network
Comment by Honeybadger Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 10:33 am
Since ownership, funding and control are pretty secret, i’d call it Putin’s Transparent Truth.
Comment by Al Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 10:34 am
Illinois Propaganda Organization - Right (IPOR)
Comment by Norseman Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 10:37 am
–Liberty Justice Center Director of Litigation Jacob Huebert, who represents plaintiff Mark Janus in the case, didn’t understand why the bishops would file such a brief.–
Maybe one of the other Superfriends at the Liberty Justice Center could read the brief to him. I bet Wendy or Marvin would do it. Or Wonderdog.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 10:39 am
“They’re [AFSCME]taking it out of my wallet and putting it in theirs without my asking and without my permission.”
Clearly, Mr. Janus was not paying attention when applying for, interviewing and accepting a position with the Department of Health and Family Services, a … wait for it… union job! Yes Mr. Janus, you did give your permission. Read your contract.
Comment by commprof Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 10:42 am
==Also, I need a better moniker for the INN. Any ideas?==
There’s always the tried and true “Fake News”. You can’t tell me that “From the Illinois Policy Institute’s former project, the Fake News…” doesn’t have a certain ring to it
Comment by Lester Holt’s Mustache Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 10:43 am
I Need No facts News Network.
Good on the bishops.
Comment by Casual observer Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 10:57 am
Pravda is no longer in use.
Comment by The Way I See It Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 10:58 am
Lies lies lies - yah
Comment by Obamas Puppy Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 11:02 am
I think Janus is one of the many PSAs who were certified in the union in 2010. If that’s the case, then he needs to be reminded that all PSAs were given the opportunity to vote on whether to join the bargaining unit. It was overwhelmingly in favor of joining — 70-80 percent, I think.
Mr. Janus, that’s how democracy works. An overwhelming majority of PSAs voted to unionize, so the PSAs were unionized. You then exercised your legal right, under federal law, to exempt yourself from the bargaining unit.
But you still received the salary (and believe me, for many PSAs, it was a massive salary increase) and other benefits that were negotiated by the union. So, also under federal law, “fair share” fees were withheld from your paycheck to pay for that.
So what have you been doing with the union scale salary you’ve been getting since 2010, Mr. Janus? Donating it to charity? Or keeping it? It’s a fair question, since you obviously object to a free ride.
Comment by Nick Name Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 11:04 am
How about the Illinois News, Evangelism & Policy Team.
I.N.E.P.T.
Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 11:05 am
Interested to see wehre the Shaolin Monks fall on this one.
Comment by California Guy Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 11:09 am
Henry Francis -
Perhaps Huebert is just ignorant of Catholic thought on labor unions. Pope Leo XIII issued the encyclical Rerum Novarumin 1891 that supports labor unions.
Comment by Smitty Irving Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 11:17 am
The Tillman Times
Comment by John Gregory (ex-IRN) Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 11:17 am
INNcompetent
Comment by PublicServant Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 11:22 am
Illinois’ Not News, or for my fellow Gen X’ers, “Illinois News, NOT.”
Comment by Northsider Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 11:25 am
I have issues with both sides here. First of all I dont consider someone applying for and accepting a job, knowing the conditions and agreeing to those conditions, to be “Government Coercion”. Unless of course they forced him to take the job when he did not want to take it.
I also have a problem with the Bishops stating “misguided effort to protect one individual from government coercion would leave only individuals to stand against government (or economic) coercion,”. I believe that every individual should be protected from government coercion. No picking and choosing who gets protected and who doesnt, or for what reasons.
But again, this isnt government coercion.
Comment by SOIL M Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 11:28 am
If you don’t want to work for a union job…don’t. There are plenty of private sector jobs out there. But oh yeah… those jobs don’t have anyone fighting for fair wages and benefits. I gladly pay union dues because I, as a middle aged women looking for a job,am guaranteed the same pay as a young male with the same job title.
Comment by Proud Union paying member Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 11:38 am
Krowten Swen Sionilli
Comment by City Zen Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 11:43 am
Somebody should tell Janus that wallet of his would actually be even worse off without the union.
Comment by The one Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 11:45 am
Illinois’ Greatest News Organization (IGNOR)?
Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 11:52 am
Wondering whether any of the facile wordsmiths here could come up with a moniker that honors INN’s ideological-financial pedigree.
Because that would be helpful for each of us to remember, all day every day.
To the content: I saw the notice of the amicus brief when it was filed. I found it somewhat surprising but heartening.
Comment by dbk Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 11:57 am
It’s Not Newsworthy, or: TEASE-Tillman’s Eccentric Alt-Right Source (of) Enlightenment.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 11:59 am
Hey did u hear about a memo, or something?
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 12:01 pm
If they change their name to “Coalition of Raunerite Associated Policies” the acronym would be much easier
Comment by SOIL M Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 12:01 pm
Well if he wants to stop paying for the “extra” rights and privileges - because he says he literally does not want them, he does not want the extra wages or the job security or the “Cadillac” pension - then I think he should have to give them all up. Give up the pension, move into a 401k, probably never get another raise,
be an “at will” employee that literally doesn’t know if he will have a job tomorrow, everything. He says that’s what he wants, give it to him.
Comment by Perrid Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 12:17 pm
Mark Janus left state employment for 17 years and yet apparently decided working in a union position was better than private sector work so returned to state government.
Comment by A Jack Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 12:43 pm
How’s about ‘FINN’ for ‘Fake Illinois News Network’
Comment by Rufus Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 12:43 pm
I wonder how many merit comp positions Janus has bid on.
Comment by Raccoon Mario Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 12:45 pm
=Well if he wants to stop paying for the “extra” rights and privileges - because he says he literally does not want them, he does not want the extra wages or the job security or the “Cadillac” pension - then I think he should have to give them all up.=
His strawman argument is that he could have negotiated a better pay and benefits package on his own at his position.
http://www.sj-r.com/opinion/20170930/mark-janus-workers-should-have-right-to-choose-on-union-dues-fees
Comment by Block Me Not Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 12:52 pm
Mr. Janus knew or could reasonably have been expected to know about fair share obligations when he applied for and accepted State employment. His arguments as well as those of the wealthy investor class supporting him with this litigation are disingenuous and pejorative.
Comment by kitty Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 12:53 pm
Paying fair share fees is a lawful condition of employment. By this logic Janus didn’t give permission for money to be deducted for the pension. But he’s not complaining about that.
There is a cost to union services provided.
These are all conditions you agree to when accepting a union covered position.
Comment by Steve Polite Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 1:08 pm
According to AFSCME’s brief Janus has never questioned the break down of legal expenses under Lehnert in the Hudson letter he and all fee payers receive every year.
Comment by Steve Polite Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 1:14 pm
Illinois Nutty News
Comment by DuPage Saint Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 1:33 pm
Hate to Janus, but he did give AFSCME permission. He had to sign a little green card when he was hired designating if he wanted full union membership or fair share.
Comment by Mongo Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 1:34 pm
Mr. Janus; Please do everyone a favor and shut up. I worked for the State of Illinois for over 20 years. I paid my dues, and enjoyed the benefits. You have received the same benefits, yet you complain of being sorely used by the union. If you don’t like the jib requirements, move on. I know people who work with you. They are not very complimentary of your work. You are not well liked, and the job can no longer be that great that you stay around because you feel only you can do the job. The only person you are impressing is the Governor. (I guess you have that going for you)
Comment by Retired Educator Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 1:39 pm
“Komrade Rauner Always Prevails”
KRAP
You could also use the “C” spelling of the word and come up with, as SOIL M suggested above, CRAP.
Comment by Osborne Smith III Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 1:39 pm
Mark Janus- besides the services aspect as mentioned, you might want to see how much pressure was put on employees to knock on doors at every level of employee, until unions put a stop to it.
Yes, the courts had significant rulings but it was public emplyee unions who ultimately protected your freedoms, especially when Blago and Quinn (governors you likely disagreed with) were in power.
Comment by low level Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 2:06 pm
“They’re taking it out of my wallet and putting it in theirs without my asking and without my permission.”
Union dues are voted upon and approved by the membership at a meeting open to all members. It’s called democracy.
Comment by Alton Giant Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 4:07 pm
INN
Idiopathic Nostrum Nemesis
Comment by TinyDancer(TKASue) Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 4:37 pm
I have been a member of two unions in the past and I appreciate their importance and gladly paid my dues. Unions have done a lot to improve the quality of life for both union and non-union workers. But I have to say that I agree that to be required to join a union and pay them dues as a condition for employment seems wrong, especially for a government job where typically union membership is not an endorsement of your skills, as membership in a trade union may be. For an employer to not hire a person who is otherwise qualified for the job simply because that person refuses pay some third party for the right to participate in that employment sounds like extortion. Most would agree that a person should not have to make a donation to an alderman as a condition for employment for a City job. Nor would anyone agree that a person be a member of church, fraternity or club in order to be considered for a job.
Comment by Groucho Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 4:38 pm
Wow…….
divine intervention……
maybe there is a God……
Comment by TinyDancer(FKASue) Friday, Feb 2, 18 @ 4:42 pm