‘Janus’ case rips rights from workers

Bill Knight column for Thurs., Fri., or Sat., Feb. 22, 23 or 24, 2018

Corporate interests and the Trump administration are trying to dump decades of settled law to take away the basic freedom of millions of working people to have a voice on the job. The U.S. Supreme Court case, “Janus v. AFSCME Council 31,” could undermine the ability of nurses, teachers and other public workers to negotiate over pay, benefits and workplace safety. The Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on the case on Monday.

The Obama administration supported unions in previous challenges, most recently in 2016’s “Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association” case, which seemed to be headed for an anti-labor ruling before Justice Antonin Scalia died. So the court split, 4-4, on the issue.

Since Trump appointed conservative Neil Gorsuch to replace Scalia, the court in September said it would take “Janus” as a new challenge, and this winter, the Trump administration asked the Court to overturn a decades-old precedent that permits the requirement that public employees pay some fees to unions that represent them. That decision, 1977’s “Abood v. Detroit Board of Education,” ensures unions recover costs of bargaining and enforcing contracts – but not partisan political activities.

“Janus” is another transparent attempt to weaken organized labor, particularly the public sector.

“The ‘Janus’ case is part of a coordinated attack on workers financed by anti-union, anti-worker billionaires and corporate interests whose aim is to destroy unions and make it impossible for working people to join together and protect hard-fought rights and protections,” said Laborers president Terry O’Sullivan.

“If the court rules against the unions, it would be overturning legal precedent that has protected workers for 40 years and siding with corporate interests who want to silence workers,” continued O’Sullivan.

The lead plaintiff in the case is Mark Janus, a child-support specialist at the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services whose legal team argues that under current law he’s forced to support a union that doesn’t represent his views, and they claim that violates his First Amendment rights.

In reality, Janus’ contributions to AFSCME don’t go toward political or social issues about which he disagrees. Instead, “Janus” attacks a key source of revenue for unions to do the work they’re expected – and obligated – to do, in order to weaken them.

“The forces behind this case know that by joining together in strong unions, working people have the voice they need to level the economic and political playing field,” said AFSCME Council 31 director Roberta Lynch. “The billionaires and corporate special interests funding this case view unions as a threat to their power, so they are trying to get the U.S. Supreme Court to rig the system even more in favor of those already at the top.

“By outlawing Fair Share fees, employees who benefit from gains the union makes will not have to pay anything toward the cost of union representation,” she continued. “The wealthy elite behind this case want to drain unions of resources so working people will not have a powerful voice.”

AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka added, “For more than 40 years … the law recognized unions and employers have the freedom to negotiate agreements under which everybody contributes his or her fair share. But now the Trump administration is urging the court to reverse this precedent and undermine working people and unions. This is a shameful political payback to reward those who seek to do working people harm. Arguing against our freedoms at work is not what working people expect of our government. Actions speak louder than words, Mr. President.”

Besides organized labor, AFSCME has had support from various interests, even the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Its amicus brief backing labor says, “The Catholic bishops of the United States have long and consistently supported the right of workers to organize for purposes of collective bargaining. Because this right is substantially weakened by so-called ‘Right-To-Work’ laws, many bishops – in their dioceses, through their state conferences, and through their national conference – have opposed or cast doubt on such laws, and no U.S. bishop has expressed support for them.

“Petitioner’s proposed rationale for this dramatic move appears designed to lay the foundation for a still more dramatic one: constitutionalizing, in a subsequent case, the ‘Right-To-Work’ rule in the private sector as well,” the brief adds. Without “fair-share,” agency fees or other contributions toward the costs of representation – which could be made illegal in the “Janus” case, “unions face a ‘free rider’ problem that dramatically weakens them and, in turn, their bargaining power on behalf of workers, as experience in ‘Right-To-Work’ states to date has borne out,” the bishops’ brief says.