Janus v. AFSCME
Facts: Mark Janus works as a Child Support Specialist for the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services under a contract negotiated between the State of Illinois and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (“AFSCME”). He sued AFSCME in federal court arguing that it was a violation of his constitutional rights to be required to pay union dues. AFSCME argued that it has to represent Janus, whether he wants it to or not, because the state law requires a union to represent everyone in a bargaining unit equally. The contract stipulated that each worker in Janus’ unit must financially contribute to cover the costs associated with collective bargaining, commonly called “agency” or “fair share” fees. In Illinois, and twenty-one other states including Maryland, workers are required to pay these mandatory fees if they are represented by a union.
History: In 1977, in the landmark case of Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the Supreme Court upheld the legality of agency fees in public sector unions. The Court reasoned that since all workers in a bargaining unit benefit from union representation, a contract can require all the workers to pay their share. Such an arrangement, the Court decided, would promote labor peace. The Court ruled further that workers don’t have to pay for a union’s political expenditures such as campaign donations, election canvassing and the like. That resulted in workers electing to opt out and paying only their fair share fees, which are normal dues minus the portion that would go to politics.
Supporters of Janus: Conservative groups have funded the lawsuit and have filed briefs in support of Janus arguing that public sector workers should not have to pay any fees at all based on First Amendment grounds (i.e., a union’s political activities). Second, they argue that collective bargaining for government workers is inherently political, since the terms the unions bargain for such as salaries and benefits for their members impact state budgets and the use of taxpayer dollars. Therefore, mandatory fair share fees amount to compelled speech, in violation of the First Amendment.
Opponents of Janus: Labor unions rely upon mandatory fees as the strongest source of revenue for funding their political efforts on behalf of their members, including canvassing and campaigning. Consequently, a ruling against AFSCME would be devastating at a time when overall union membership rates are near historic lows. Secondly, and more importantly, if the Court rules against AFSCME, the entire U.S. public employment sector would no longer be required to pay any dues to unions that bargain on its behalf.
Conclusion: Court observers predict that the high court’s conservative majority (Chief Justice Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito), and possibly, Kennedy is likely to strike down the mandatory dues requirement as unconstitutional for the reasons stated above.
History: In 1977, in the landmark case of Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the Supreme Court upheld the legality of agency fees in public sector unions. The Court reasoned that since all workers in a bargaining unit benefit from union representation, a contract can require all the workers to pay their share. Such an arrangement, the Court decided, would promote labor peace. The Court ruled further that workers don’t have to pay for a union’s political expenditures such as campaign donations, election canvassing and the like. That resulted in workers electing to opt out and paying only their fair share fees, which are normal dues minus the portion that would go to politics.
Supporters of Janus: Conservative groups have funded the lawsuit and have filed briefs in support of Janus arguing that public sector workers should not have to pay any fees at all based on First Amendment grounds (i.e., a union’s political activities). Second, they argue that collective bargaining for government workers is inherently political, since the terms the unions bargain for such as salaries and benefits for their members impact state budgets and the use of taxpayer dollars. Therefore, mandatory fair share fees amount to compelled speech, in violation of the First Amendment.
Opponents of Janus: Labor unions rely upon mandatory fees as the strongest source of revenue for funding their political efforts on behalf of their members, including canvassing and campaigning. Consequently, a ruling against AFSCME would be devastating at a time when overall union membership rates are near historic lows. Secondly, and more importantly, if the Court rules against AFSCME, the entire U.S. public employment sector would no longer be required to pay any dues to unions that bargain on its behalf.
Conclusion: Court observers predict that the high court’s conservative majority (Chief Justice Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito), and possibly, Kennedy is likely to strike down the mandatory dues requirement as unconstitutional for the reasons stated above.