Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Shaw wants “responsible budgeting, spending and cost-cutting” before tax hike on upper incomes
Next Post: Majority Leader defends handling of Stava-Murray bill
Posted in:
A former state worker in Illinois who won a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case last year striking down mandatory union fees for public employees is now asking a federal appeals court to order the union to refund nearly $3,000 in fees he was forced to pay over the course of his career.
Mark Janus worked as a child support specialist for the state from 2007 until 2018. And although he never joined a union, under Illinois law at the time, he was required to pay a “fair share” fee to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, or AFSCME, Council 31. […]
In Janus’ case, however, the high court did not order any specific relief, but instead remanded the case back to federal district court in Chicago for further proceedings. Janus then asked the district court to award damages in the amount of fair share fees he had paid prior to the Supreme Court’s decision.
Last week, U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman denied that request and granted a motion by AFSCME to dismiss the claim, saying the union had acted “in good faith,” based on controlling law at the time.
The National Right to Work Foundation, which helped represent Janus in the Supreme Court case, announced Wednesday it would take its case to the Seventh Circuit Court of appeals after the efforts to reclaim the $3,000 were rebuffed by an Illinois federal judge earlier this month.
But a Seventh Circuit panel has already rejected the idea in a case that came before it in December, when it said home health care workers, who won their own case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in a 2014 case that originated out of Illinois, were not entitled to the union wages they had to pay before the Harris v. Quinn decision.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 10:03 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Shaw wants “responsible budgeting, spending and cost-cutting” before tax hike on upper incomes
Next Post: Majority Leader defends handling of Stava-Murray bill
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Give ‘em an inch and they’ll take a mile. These guys really want to kill unions.
Comment by Perrid Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 10:06 am
And as a citizen I want back his pension, retirement healthcare, all the raises and step increases he received over the years … with interest. Let his new employer cover that for him.
Comment by The Real Captain Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 10:08 am
Oh yeah? Well, the Union wants their legal fees and expenses for negotiating your salary, it also wants a percentage of your pension as its fee for protecting it against the same people who are paying your legal bills you ingrate.
Comment by Springfieldish Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 10:09 am
In a press release yesterday, AFSCME reported that they retained 94% of their members, meaning they lost 6% (-82,000). Mark Janus has already accomplished his goal. Can’t the Illinois Policy Institute just give him another job at their right-wing organization? http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/21809/janus_afscme_supreme_court_union_labor_agency_fees
Comment by Move On Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 10:15 am
IPI must not pay very well if you need that $3,000.
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 10:23 am
Is he going to refund the value of the salaries and benefits the union negotiated for him?
The Grifter Entitlement is strong in this one.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 10:24 am
Give it to him in pennies, delivered via dumptruck to the IPI mansion.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 10:31 am
Send an invoice for services rendered to the plaintiff
Comment by Rabid Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 10:32 am
The real money is in the class actions, where the people who normally detest such lawsuits now argue they are vindicating the rights of thousands. Those cases in Illinois and elsewhere haven’t succeeded yet, but I am concerned about what an anti-labor Supreme Court may do if it takes any of these appeals.
Comment by Not a Superstar Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 10:35 am
That reminds me, I wonder how he’s enjoying his pension that is based upon the consistently increasing wages he earned while employed. Wages, of course, that were negotiated over time by the Union for his contractual a covered position.
Comment by Harvest76 Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 10:42 am
It’s possible he deserves even more if he was a high-performing employee at the State, as a blanket contract could have undercut what he would have earned bargaining individually.
Either way, good luck to Mr. Janus.
Comment by The Big Salad Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 10:45 am
Who is behind this? WHo’s backing this?
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 10:46 am
I wonder if Janus is owed backpay from the court affirmed Step wage theft of Rauner?
Why doesn’t he sue the state for that?
I bet it’s a heck of a lot more than the dues.
Comment by Honeybear Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 10:47 am
How is this not expo facto, want a new law to override an old law with penalties
Comment by Rabid Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 10:48 am
Janus and his lawyers are going for quite a stretch there. Don’t think they will get all they are asking for. Based on a similar case by 4 or 5 IDOR employees against AFSCME that was settled out of court back, I think, in the early 1980’s, Janus may get a refund back to the point where he filed suit.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 10:51 am
Janus benefited from the union. If at any time he didn’t want what a bargaining unit position offered, he could have quit his job, did a union decertification campaign, applied for a merit comp job or something else. Bargaining unit jobs are negotiated because a majority of workers choose to belong to a union. Respect democracy.
But we see the other face of Janus, now that he works with the IPI. Janus is a working class traitor and scab who sold out public employees all over America, to try to benefit the billionaires.
By the way, the anti-union campaign pushed by the IPI and others funded by billionaires is failing when it comes to AFSCME. The union reports gaining members and having relatively minimal losses. The feepayer sign-ups to member opt-outs ratio is reportedly 8-1. Many of these workers clearly don’t want right wing anti-unionism and know who’s trying to bust unions.
Comment by Grandson of Man Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 10:54 am
–It’s possible he deserves even more–
Surely this is snark?
Yeah, those jobs are called merit comp, and he had as much right as anyone to apply for those posituons and negotiate for himself. But he know as well as the rest of us that he wouldnt have made the money he made under a negotiated contract. I think you know that too.
Comment by Harvest76 Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 10:54 am
Doesn’t the $ amount dictate that this should be heard by the Small Claims Court? Maybe RNUG can explain why the Federal Courts would even accept the case…?
Comment by Happy Retiree Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 10:57 am
-Rabid
Essentially, their theory is that because it was determined that the public sector fair-share system is a 1st Amendment violation, it follows that it has always been a violation, thus, any and all fees collected under that system were a violation of the Constitution and must be returned. So, in their opinion, there is no ex post facto issue.
Comment by The 5th Deputy Gov. Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 11:00 am
==It’s possible he deserves even more if he was a high-performing employee at the State, as a blanket contract could have undercut what he would have earned bargaining individually.==
As a merit comp employee, he would have gotten no pay raises since Blago took office. So he should owe money for his union-negotiated pay raises. As it is, he’s a bleeping hypocrite, period. His whole 1st Amendment argument was that he did not want the union speaking for him in contract negotiations, and should not be compelled to, as the Supreme Court put it, be “forced by the government to travel with an exclusive representative to policy destinations that they may not wish to reach.” If he really meant that, he would be screaming his outrage at the fact that the Supreme Court left the exclusive union representation requirement intact. But what he really wanted was his pay and benefits without having to pay for them.
Comment by Whatever Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 11:02 am
==And as a citizen I want back his pension, retirement healthcare, all the raises and step increases he received over the years … with interest.==
That’s quite a compelling argument. (see what I did there?)
Comment by City Zen Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 11:05 am
If he allowed this repayment
What’s to stop current employees at the time of their retirement to also demand a refund
They could use the union for many years
Benefit from their services
Then right before they walk out the door for good. Go back and get a refund of all their dues
Comment by Nick Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 11:11 am
You don’t get to go back in time. Something is constitutional until it’s not. The dues were collected lawfully up until the Janus decision.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 11:19 am
Unbelievable.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 11:20 am
How about IL gives the refund less a deduct for any salary hikes or other benefits he was able to mooch .Seems fair
Comment by Annonin' Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 11:20 am
== So, in their opinion, there is no ex post facto issue. ==
Previous court cases had upheld the fee, and AFSCME was using that advice and guidance in collecting the fee.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 11:25 am
== Maybe RNUG can explain why the Federal Courts would even accept the case…? ==
Was already in Federal court. I assume this is just about determining damages.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 11:26 am
What a tool. This is really childish. Hopefully the court will laugh at his request and tell him to take a hike.
Comment by Ginhouse Tommy Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 11:28 am
===I bet it’s a heck of a lot more than the dues.===
His step back pay is about ten times the measly $3000 he’s asking to be refunded.
Comment by Nick Name Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 11:35 am
== to refund nearly $3,000 in fees … ==
If he is worrying about $3,000, Janus must not be making enough money at his new gig.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 11:39 am
===as a blanket contract could have undercut what he would have earned bargaining individually===
What color is the sky in your world?
Comment by Nick Name Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 11:54 am
Even if the union depended on the earlier rulings to justify the fees, those rulings were apparently erroneously made given the outcome in Janus. If it is unconstitutional now, it was so when the money was collected. The logic is inescapable. I doubt Mr. Janus will succeed in court though I would like to see the Suprene Court take a crack at this.
Comment by Captain Obvious Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 12:26 pm
RNUG, how can he get his union dues back prior to his lawsuit?
Comment by M Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 12:45 pm
Some folks just don’t know when to walk away.
You got your name on the winning end of a Supreme Court case. Just leave it at that.
Comment by City Zen Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 12:59 pm
=If it is unconstitutional now, it was so when the money was collected.=
So if the Court were to determine that capital punishment was “cruel and unusual” and thus unconstitutional, then those who had participated in carrying it out previously would be subject to criminal charges?
Not obvious to me
Comment by Truthteller Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 1:07 pm
–Some folks just don’t know when to walk away.–
The IPI conglomerama didn’t put him on the payroll to walk away. He’s paid to “have standing” in lawsuits.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 1:18 pm
“In a press release yesterday, AFSCME reported that they retained 94% of their members”
Wrong. Fair share feepayers were not union members. The 94% number is both members and non-members. AFSCME by far gained more members from former fair share feepayers and new hires than membership losses through opt-outs.
“It’s possible he deserves even more if he was a high-performing employee at the State”
Lol, Rauner’s merit pay scam would only guarantee pay for 25% of workers doing merit work. He would have blown that one, too.
Comment by Grandson of Man Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 1:54 pm
-truthteller
Agreed, there are plenty of solid defenses to the claim, but that is essentially what they are arguing.
Comment by The 5th Deputy Gov. Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 1:55 pm
Rauner and his peeps will continue suing the unions until they break the unions financially. That is their whole game plan.
Comment by Mama Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 2:08 pm
Slinger If he starts losing lawsuits he has “standing” in then they won’t have much use for in will they.
Comment by Ginhouse Tommy Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 2:09 pm
Oh poor baby. Let’s have a bake sale for him.
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 2:54 pm
== Rauner’s merit pay scam would only guarantee pay for 25% of workers doing merit work. He would have blown that one, too. ==
Other than the first two years, Merit Comp never was allowed to work as designed … quotas on the number of exceed and exceptional ratings plus a flawed formula designed to hold raises down … so it wouldn’t have been much of a job for Rauner to further mess MC up.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 3:31 pm
Union didn’t take his money, the state did
Comment by Rabid Friday, Mar 29, 19 @ 8:59 am
Whats next going sue for yor jobs tax back cus you don’t like state abortion
Comment by Rabid Friday, Mar 29, 19 @ 9:04 am