See also Janus v. AFSCME.
[Image source. Click image to open in new window.]
Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner on Wednesday [2018-06-27] notched a major victory in a battle with organized labor when the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion that could undercut public employee unions nationwide.
In a case with roots in Rauner's first weeks in office, the court ruled that public workers shouldn't have to pay fees to a union they don't want to join. That means government employees in Illinois and nearly two dozen other states can choose not to pay for union efforts to bargain over wages, pensions, health care benefits and other services.
The governor, who has long been at odds with organized labor and has called the state's largest public employee union "Af-Scammy," praised the Supreme Court's decision as a "historic victory for freedom of speech." Union advocates had warned a ruling against the fees would weaken organized labor by chipping away at their membership and the funding that goes along with it, but labor leaders vowed to fight back.
The idea behind the "fair share" fees struck down Wednesday is that unions negotiate on behalf of all employees within a workplace, and workers who benefit from bargaining should help cover that cost even if they don't agree with the union's politics. It's a legal precedent that the high court set in 1977 in a case known as Abood v. Detroit Board of Education that Wednesday [2018-06-27]'s 5-4 decision has now reversed.
The money from the fees is supposed to be used for a union's expenses to negotiate new contracts and handle grievances, not to pay for its political activity. But labor opponents contend that it's impossible to define what's political within a union that negotiates with the government. A majority of justices agreed.
"Forcing free and independent individuals to endorse ideas they find objectionable raises serious First Amendment concerns," Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the majority. "That includes compelling a person to subsidize the speech of other private speakers. ... Even under the more permissive standard, Illinois' scheme cannot survive."
In the dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the ruling "will have large-scale consequences."
"Public employee unions will lose a secure source of financial support. State and local governments that thought fair-share provisions furthered their interests will need to find new ways of managing their workforces. Across the country, the relationships of public employees and employers will alter in both predictable and wholly unexpected ways," she wrote.
[2018-06-27] Roberta Lynch, executive director of AFSCME Council 31, addresses reporters during a news conference to denounce the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Janus v. the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31 lawsuit on June 27, 2018, in Chicago.
[Source]
[2018-06-27] AFSCME response to Janus ruling. AFSCME Executive Director Roberta Lynch responds to the U.S. Supreme Court's Janus v AFSCME decision.
[Source]
Bruce Rauner has spent all week in Washington, D.C., in anticipation of the ruling, demonstrating his heavy interest in a case that represents one of the biggest wins of his term and one that could help define his legacy. From the steps of the Supreme Court building Wednesday [2018-06-27], the governor called the decision "pro-workers and pro-taxpayer," saying it represents a "historic victory for freedom of speech and affiliation for our public-sector employees, and for taxpayers who have to bear the high cost of government."
He said the state will stop withholding the fees from paychecks of workers who are not in a union, and said state employees would be notified of the ruling and "given an opportunity to modify their union status."
Labor leaders hope workers won't use that "opportunity." Roberta Lynch, executive director of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31, called the case a "blatant political attack by Bruce Rauner and other wealthy interests on the freedom of working people to form strong unions." She said the union would be "making certain that every union member knows the real intent of this case is to defund unions, then drive down wages and benefits of public service workers. We're not going to let that happen."
AFSCME bargains on behalf of more than 75,000 public employees in Illinois, and more than 90 percent of them are members, spokesman Anders Lindall said. For the 10 percent who aren't members and pay fair share fees instead of typical union dues, Wednesday [2018-06-27]'s ruling means those fees won't be deducted from their next paycheck.
Current dues-paying members also could drop off the membership rolls -- and some might be inclined to do so, since they would be free from paying fair share fees. Lindall said nonmember fees are set by each of the hundreds of Illinois locals and usually amount to about 80 percent of member dues.
The Rauner administration says full member dues average $911 per year, and nonmembers pay an average of $737 per year in fees. AFSCME's Lindall said the administration figure was too high, but he did not provide specific figures, saying the data weren't available.
The Supreme Court's ruling comes amid Rauner's re-election bid against Democratic challenger J.B. Pritzker, who has received substantial public union support. Standing with union workers outside a Springfield cafe, Pritzker accused Rauner of using the Supreme Court "as his instrument to attack working families."
"That was his goal in the first place: Lower the power of working families, lower the power of middle-class families across the state so that he can lower wages for them, he thinks that's what's good for the people of Illinois," Prizker said. "I think that's dead wrong."
And Conservative Party governor candidate Sam McCann, a Republican state lawmaker who has backed labor in the past, called the case "a clear attack on workers' ability to stand up for better conditions at work."
Challenging the fair share fees was one of Rauner's first acts when he took office in 2015. He issued an executive order giving state workers who don't want to pay permission not to, and he later instructed state agencies to stop collecting the fees on behalf of public employee unions. He also pre-emptively filed a federal lawsuit seeking to have the matter escalated to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The governor was removed from that lawsuit when a judge ruled that he lacked standing to challenge public unions in his official capacity because he had "no personal interest at stake." Three workers who also were contesting the fees proceeded with their own complaint, which became the Janus v. AFSCME case the Supreme Court decided on Wednesday [2018-06-27]. The lead plaintiff is Illinois state employee Mark Janus, who objected to the roughly $45 per month deduction from his paycheck that went to AFSCME.
-
Mark Janus is now [2020-09-08] a Senior Fellow at the both the Liberty Justice Center, and the Illinois Policy Institute [local copy (html()].
In March 2016, the court was considering a different case in which a Southern California teacher argued that her free speech rights were violated by being forced to pay about $650 a year in union fees. But after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the court issued a 4-4 split decision that left the fees in place.
On Wednesday [2018-06-27], it was President Donald Trump's appointee, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, who broke the tie.
Trump, whom Rauner often tries to avoid discussing, tweeted in approval of the decision: "Supreme Court rules in favor of non-union workers who are now, as an example, able to support a candidate of his or her choice without having those who control the Union deciding for them. Big loss for the coffers of the Democrats!"
In his majority opinion, Alito rejected the unions' argument that allowing employees to not pay fees would permit "free riders" who benefit from the unions' work without shouldering any of the cost. Instead, Alito cast Janus as "not a free rider on a bus headed for a destination that he wishes to reach but is more like a person shanghaied for an unwanted voyage."
Alito added that the loss of the fee payments "may cause unions to experience unpleasant transition costs in the short term, and may require unions to make adjustments in order to attract and retain members."
Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Gorsuch agreed. All four liberal justices -- Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Kagan -- dissented.
Kagan contended the consequences would be more drastic.
"Without a fair-share agreement, the class of union non-members spirals upward," Kagan wrote. "Employees (including those who love the union) realize that they can get the same benefits even if they let their memberships expire. And as more and more stop paying dues, those left must take up the financial slack (and anyway, begin to feel like suckers) -- so they too quit the union."
Bruce Rauner had used the Janus lawsuit to make the case to voters that he should be re-elected to a second term, pointing to it as an accomplishment from his time in office and promising that once the fees are overturned, it will result in "transformative change" for taxpayers.
Appearing with Janus outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday [2018-06-27], Rauner said the court had upheld his long-standing belief that "everything a government union does is political," which he has contended drives up the cost of running state government.
"Bargaining, work rules, all of that activity is political at its very core and therefore forcing support of that financially is a violation of freedom of speech," Rauner said.
The victory reunited Rauner with John Tillman, founder of the Liberty Justice Center and CEO of the Illinois Policy Institute. The two publicly split last year following a series of controversies. Janus was represented in the case by attorneys at the National Right to Work Foundation [National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation ?], and the Illinois Policy Institute-affiliated Liberty Justice Center, which scolded Rauner earlier this year for "falsely claiming involvement in the case and making predictions about its success."
On Wednesday [2018-06-27], though, Tillman hailed Rauner for his role in pushing the issue, thanking him for "having the vision, leadership and courage to do so at great risk and under great criticism."
"Gov. Rauner, this is an amazing policy legacy for you, freeing 5 million workers in 22 states, it's truly incredible," Tillman said.
The national scope and import of the ruling was evidenced by the responses to it, from Trump to candidates for municipal and county offices.
U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a potential 2020 Democratic presidential contender, posted a nearly two-minute campaign-style video on Twitter featuring the national presidents of AFSCME, the National Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers and the AFL-CIO vowing to continue the union movement.
"Powerful people have been rigging the system against workers for a long time now, and the Supreme Court has just handed them a huge victory in Janus vs. AFSCME," Warren says in the video.
"Unions built America's middle class, and unions will rebuild America's middle class. Working people deserve fair pay, good benefits, predictable schedules and a real voice in the workplace. That's why I stand with unions all the way," she said. "We're not going anywhere."
Return to Persagen.com