Eugene, OR – A federal First Amendment lawsuit brought by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys and the Gibson Law Firm for Oregon public employee Debora Nearman against Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 503 has ended with a settlement agreement that will return nearly $3,000 in forced dues to Nearman. The refund represents the first return of forced fees as a result of the Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court Janus v. AFSCME decision, which held that the First Amendment prohibits mandatory union fees.
Nearman, an employee at the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, filed the lawsuit in April challenging the constitutionality of mandatory union fees as a condition of government employment. After the Janus decision was issued, the writing was on the wall for SEIU officials, who quickly moved to settle the case and return more than two years of forced fees to Nearman.
In her complaint, Nearman objected to being required to financially support and associate with SEIU Local 503 because the organization actively opposes her personal views, including her religious beliefs and her husband’s public service.
>> Click to read the rest of the article.
In a landmark First Amendment decision, the Supreme Court ruled earlier this summer in Janus v. AFSCME that states cannot require public employees to pay “agency fees” to unions. Prior to the decision, in 22 states, public employees who chose not to join a union could still be required to pay these fees — somewhat less than full dues — for union services. Some have suggested that unions might temper their left-wing politics in response to the decision, in the hopes of wooing potential members put off by union politics.
For unions, the stakes could hardly be higher. Kate Walsh, president of the National Council on Teacher Quality, warns that surveys show “many [teachers] see dues as too high” and “political activity as too leftist”; she also notes that “only half of all teachers voted for Hillary Clinton.” Internal documents from the National Education Association (NEA), the nation’s largest teachers’ union, anticipate that the union will lose a whopping 300,000 members. Things look even bleaker for the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), the nation’s other major teachers’ union, which has 15 of its 22 largest state affiliates in former agency-fee states — and already had fewer than half its members paying full dues.
By happenstance, both unions held their big national conventions in July, providing a chance to scour the tea leaves for subtle hints as to how the unions might woo reluctant members, especially the hefty share who take issue with the leftist bent that has characterized the unions in recent decades. Even before the shock of Janus, unions worked in concert with Senate and House Republicans in 2015 to pass the Every Student Succeeds Act in a push to roll back many of the federal educational excesses of the Bush and Obama years, so a shift in approach seemed entirely possible.
>> Click to read the rest of this article.
Columbus, OH – The Buckeye Institute has secured the first major post-Janus v. AFSCME legal victories for two of its clients.
In cases in Maine and Minnesota, a public-sector union granted a member’s demand to immediately cancel full union membership and cease withholding union dues, without requiring the union member to wait weeks or months until the designated opt-out window or comply with any other opt-out rules or procedures—any of which would be unlawful under Janus.
“We are very pleased that unions recognize that they have no choice but to comply with the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Janus v. AFSCME, which protects the First Amendment rights of public employees and applies not just to agency-fee payers, but to all union members,” said Robert Alt, president and chief executive officer of The Buckeye Institute, and one of the lead attorneys for both of these two clients. “By abandoning the kind of opt-out regime that was explicitly rejected by the Supreme Court in Janus, the Inter Faculty Organization in Minnesota and the Associated Faculties of the Universities of Maine have taken an important first step for all other public-sector unions to follow.”
>> Click to read the rest of the article.
The American Federation of Teachers held its biennial convention in Pittsburgh this month. Fresh off the Supreme Court ruling in Janus v. AFSCME that public unions can’t charge fees to non-members — a break from long-held practice that will cost labor millions in revenues and untold membership losses — conventioneers were defiant.
“This is our moment. This is our movement,” said AFT President Randi Weingarten in her keynote address to delegates.
She supported her optimism by announcing that membership levels were at an all-time high. AFT claims 1,755,015 members, with growth that has been uninterrupted even by the 2008 recession.
But AFT’s membership numbers require a lot more scrutiny and interpretation than do those of the National Education Association.
>> Click to read the rest of the article.
Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court took a significant step toward restoring individual liberty for all government employees, including faculty in public universities and colleges, with its decision in Janus v. AFSCME. Faculty members will no longer be forced to pay any labor union any fee for any purpose as a condition of continued government employment.
Janus overturned the Court’s 1977 decision in Abood v. Board of Education against which I and thousands of fellow liberty-loving public higher education faculty have long struggled. Abood prohibited unions from charging faculty for their explicit political advocacy but permitted them to charge faculty for their activities as exclusive bargaining agents, even if the individual wanted no such representation. The Janus Court ruled that all such activities are inherently political so mandatory charges to pay for them violate the First Amendment.
I feel vindicated by Janus; and, to the extent that the decision weakens the influence of faculty unions, it gives me hope that higher education may gradually turn back to academic inquiry and away from the herd pursuit of political correctness. Aristotle said, “Hope is a waking dream.” I have such a dream.
>> Click to read the rest of the article.
The Supreme Court’s recent Janus v. AFSCME decision, which gave public service employees the right to stop paying any dues or fees to unions while still receiving union-negotiated benefits, delivered a devastating blow to the labor movement.
Some observers are even wondering if public sector unions can survive its effects.
Unions can, but they will need creative new strategies for generating support — and funds. Our research into the statewide teachers union in Iowa — which, like others across the nation, has been protesting cuts to education (though it hasn’t struck; the state has strong anti-striking laws) — offers some evidence about what kind of new tactics will work.
>> Click to read the rest of the article.
Last month’s Supreme Court decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees hit public-sector unions like a bombshell.
Now that public-sector unions can no longer extract union fees from workers who want nothing to do with them, public unions will have to work harder to provide services that will prompt workers to join their ranks.
The question explored in the Janus case was whether or not forcing non-members to pay union dues violates their First Amendment rights. That issue was addressed narrowly as a matter of free speech, but more broadly it had much to do with wrongful coercion.
Both members and non-members of public-sector unions can opt out of paying the portion of dues that explicitly goes to the union’s political activities. But, until recently, non-members could still be forced by law to pay what was called a “fair share” fee, because even non-members could receive the benefits of union representation (since unions have a monopoly on worker-employer negotiations).
>> Click to read the rest of the article.
The team of teachers pulled up to the school custodian’s house on a steamy summer day hoping to close the deal. They had been there twice with no luck, and Marsel Kovaci was proving to be a hard sell.
He was a union agency fee-payer, meaning he had declined to join the union but was still obligated to pay union fees — obligated, that is, until the Supreme Court declared otherwise last month. With a salary half that of a teacher, the janitor suddenly had a decision to make. So Mary Kruchinski, a representative of the New York State United Teachers, wasted no time.
“What’s the best thing about your job?” she asked.
“The kids,” he said. “I try to keep things nice for them.”
Click to read the rest of the article.
State workers previously paying “fair share” fees no longer have money deducted from their paychecks on behalf of a union.
On June 27, the U.S. Supreme Court declared forced union fees violate the First Amendment rights of government workers.
And some state workers are already taking home more money.
Prior to the court’s decision, Illinois state workers who opted out of union membership still had to pay “fair share” fees to the union. Those fees totaled over $700 a year on average, according to an email sent by the Illinois Department of Central Management Services to state employees on June 27.
But after the court ruled in Janus v. AFSCME that those fees violate workers’ rights, the state announced it would stop deducting fair share fees from workers who had already opted out of the union.
>> Click to read the rest of the article.
by Kate Walsh, President, National Council on Teaching Quality (NCTQ)
Make no bones about it. Teachers unions are reeling from a game-changing decision from the U.S. Supreme Court, issued the same day as the news of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement, so largely overlooked in news coverage. The public may not have much noticed, but unions feel they are standing at a precipice, not at all certain they can maintain the power they’re long accustomed to wielding.
After the high court sided with Janus in Janus vs. AFSCME, public-sector workers will no longer be required to contribute to their unions, something nearly half of all states — including Minnesota — require regardless of whether teachers choose to belong to the union. The nation’s largest union, the National Education Association (NEA), having just held its annual convention in Minneapolis, expects to be hard hit. It’s anyone’s best guess how many of the 78,000 active teachers who currently contribute to the Education Minnesota union will opt out in the years ahead, but the initial hit will almost certainly include some 7,000 teachers who have already registered their discontent over having been forced to contribute.
The fast-flowing pipeline of dollars from teachers to unions ($600 million a year, nationally) is bound to be disrupted, and here’s why. Independent surveys consistently report that only half of all teachers see their union as “essential” and that many see dues as too high, political activity as too leftist (only half of all teachers voted for Hillary Clinton) and positions on education issues counter to schools’ paramount interests. And with much of this disaffection skewing toward younger teachers, the unions have their work cut out for them.
Click to read the rest of the article.
