The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could weaken organized labor unions.
Mark Janus, who works for the state government in Illinois and is represented by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, sued the union, saying he does not agree with its positions and should not be forced to pay fees to support its work. As a result the case has reached the highest court and on February 26th, 2018 the Supreme Court will hear the case. It involves whether public-sector workers can be forced to join or otherwise financially support their workplace's unions as a condition of employment. Mark Janus argues that such requirements — dubbed "security clauses" by unions — violate his First Amendment rights.
If Janus v. AFSCME passes, it will reverse a 1977 decision in Abood vs. Detroit Board of Education that currently affects public sector workers in 22 states, including New York. Abood affirmed that workers cannot be forced to join public sector unions. However, the case stated that non-unionized workers are still required to pay “fair share fees” because they ultimately benefit from union bargaining activities.
Randi Weingarten, president, American Federation of Teachers (AFT) states:
Unions are all about fighting for and caring about people—and in the public sector that includes those we represent and those we protect and teach in communities across America. Yet corporations, wealthy interests and politicians have manufactured Janus as part of their long and coordinated war against unions. Their goal is to further weaken workers’ freedom to join together in a union, to further diminish workers’ clout.
These powerful interests want to gut one of the last remaining checks on their control—a strong and united labor movement that fights for equity and opportunity for all, not just the privileged few. And under the guise of the First Amendment, they want to overturn a 40-year precedent that’s been reaffirmed numerous times. In other words, this would be a radical departure from well-established law. We believe that after resolving a similar case last year, the Supreme Court erred in granting cert in Janus, and that the trumped-up underpinnings of the plaintiff’s argument will rapidly become clear before the full bench.