Union activists and supporters gather in Lower Manhattan on Wednesday against the Supreme Court decision in the case Janus c. AFSCME
Drew Angerer / Getty Images
hide the legend
legend flips
Drew Angerer / Getty Images
Union activists and supporters gather Wednesday in Lower Manhattan against the Supreme Court's decision in the case Janus c. AFSCME
Drew Angerer / Getty Images
On the last day of its 2017-2018 term, the Supreme Court issued a decision that will hurt public sector unions in the portfolio and strike at the political influence of the workers.
. from Janus c. AFSCME the court ruled, by a 5-4 vote with conservatives, that unions of government employees can not demand represented workers that they pay a dime in union dues or fees . The blow to the unions “/>
is a decision that could cost the unions tens of millions of dollars – depending on the number of workers who simply decide that they prefer to have that money in their check rather than pay it to a trade union organization. And they can make that decision while continuing to live and work under union-negotiated contracts that offer compensation levels and benefits. And even if it is impossible to predict what will be the impact on a given syndicate, it seems certain that each of them will see a financial blow.
The case affects a large number of employees in America: police and firefighters, teachers, public health officers, municipal employees and many others. The case is also important because the public sector has a high rate of unionization – accounting for more than a third of all these workers in 2017. (This compares to only 6.5 percent of private sector jobs that were unionized during the same period.) [19659013] Is this Supreme Court decision the end of teacher unions? “/>
So Janus is right about one of the true strengths of the otherwise defeated American labor movement.
Among those celebrating the decision is Americans for Prosperity, the group funded by the Koch brothers that is part of a major national effort to enact laws limiting the ability of workers to collect contributions automatically. workers in unionized jobs.
Akash Chougule, chief executive of AFP, contends that the decision is not anti-union. "If you like your union, you can keep your union," he says. "What we are saying and, again, what the court has stated is that you can not compel workers against their willingness to finance their union."
Prior to this week's decision, government employees already had the right to pay nothing to fund the union's political activity – but they had to pay to the union something called "agency fees" to cover the costs of negotiating the contracts they received. By the decision Janus this requirement has disappeared. Harley Shaiken, a labor specialist at the University of California at Berkeley, says that Janus is meant to weaken the unions "and that he will probably do it".
] It is difficult to predict what the impact will be for a given union. But the workforce will face the following dynamic: One can expect employees who do not like unions to withdraw and take money, but that could also tempt those who are simply ambivalent to withdraw from a union. The largest public sector union in the United States is the American Federation of State Employees, Counties and Municipalities, better known as AFSCME. Its chairman, Lee Saunders, says of Janus : "You know, it's hard to take it," before adding: "We're going to have to make some adjustments, but that's fine. is an opportunity for us. 19659021] What the Kennedy Justice Retreat Means for Abortion Rights “/>
Saunders notes that the court gave guidance in an earlier case three years ago that it is the direction that She would take with this case. Thus, the leader of the AFSCME says that the union was already adapted to the new reality. He says that the AFSCME has greatly improved workers' awareness of what the union is doing for them. He says that there is also more personal contact, which includes a lot of listening from the union.
"We took this for granted – the importance of communication," says Saunders, "the importance of individual communication." He says he expects this approach to help mitigate some of the financial loss.
Saunders also points to a new era of worker activism across America. the courts make it more difficult for the unions. It highlights the massive protests and strikes that have led to pay rises for teachers in places like West Virginia, Oklahoma, and Arizona. He says it's an indication that worker activism is still very much alive, regardless of unfavorable lawsuits.
And There Is Evidence That Unions Can Do The Fact That Workers Provide Value may limit defections of contributions currently authorized by law. Shaiken says he's turning to Nevada. This is a so-called rule of law at work, where not paying union dues is already allowed for private sector workers in Union stores. Despite this, the Las Vegas Culinary Workers' Union has remained a force in both organization and politics.
Shaiken points out that it is the largest state union, with 57,000 members. "Yet 95% of those 57,000 workers pay union dues, because they see efficiency in their daily lives," says Shaiken.
This is perhaps the best case. Other unions across the country are now challenged to find their own version of this model. All of this comes as union leaders pledge to be more active than ever in the 2018 and 2020 elections, where they will find very well funded opponents
