|
 The First Amendment is among the
most cherished parts of the U.S. Constitution. Among its provisions, the First
Amendment guarantees everyone the right to choose with which organizations to
associate. That includes the right to determine what organizations a person
funds.
Yet for 40 years, that right has been stripped from government workers.
Currently, approximately 5.5 million government workers in 22 states are forced
to pay money to unions just to keep their jobs.
It’s an unfair decision: Pay the union or lose your livelihood.
It means anyone who wants to dedicate his or her life to being a teacher, child
services worker or firefighter automatically loses constitutional rights enjoyed
by others in American society.
But on Sept. 28, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Janus v. AFSCME, an
Illinois-based case seeking to restore First Amendment rights to government
workers.
 The plaintiff in the case, Mark Janus, loves his job. As a child support
specialist with the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, he
advocates for kids when their parents aren’t together anymore.
But Janus doesn’t think the union representing him – i.e., the union he is
forced to fund – is working for the good of Illinois. And he doesn’t think he
should be forced to support its political agenda.
The Supreme Court’s decision to take Janus’ case has generated headlines across
the country, with union leaders asserting that a decision in Janus’ favor will
hurt government-worker unions.
But that’s a distortion of what the case is about. Janus is about restoring
First Amendment rights to government workers, giving them a choice whether to
support a union. It’s about ensuring their ability to exercise the same rights
as every other person in this country. And it does not mean the end of
government-worker unions in Illinois.
Janus means restoring First Amendment rights to government workers
The First Amendment guarantees everyone the right to choose which organizations
to join or fund. But current Illinois law – as well as laws in 21 other states –
prevents some workers from exercising that right.
In its 1977 decision Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the Supreme Court
ruled that public employees like Janus could be forced to pay for union
representation, regardless of whether the worker wants to be represented by the
union. Since then, government workers in Illinois have been forced to pay union
fees as a condition of their employment.
[to top of second column] |
But if the Supreme Court
rules in Janus’ favor, every government employee across the country
will have the right to exercise the freedoms of association and of
political expression the First Amendment guarantees – and to choose
for himself or herself whether to give money to a union.
Janus does not mean the end of government-worker unions in Illinois
If Janus wins, it does not signal the end of government-worker
unions in Illinois. Nothing would change in the collective
bargaining process between government units and government worker
unions.
Government workers will still be able to choose union membership. In
fact, every current union member would remain a member after Janus.
Under Illinois law, a union member must take the affirmative step of
opting out of the union to cancel his or her union membership.
Unions will still represent their members at the bargaining table.
Unions will still bargain over wages, hours and other conditions of
employment.
Unions will still be able to go on strike as permitted by state law.
Unions will still represent workers in grievances against their
employer.
That undermines union leaders’ claims that a decision for the
plaintiff in Janus will up-end public-sector collective bargaining.
In fact, the lamenting of union leaders over the potential outcome
in Janus is more of an admission. If union leaders sincerely believe
members will walk out the door if given the opportunity, that means
those unions must not be satisfying those members in the first
place.
Janus could actually spur union improvement. If unions have to work
and prove their value to earn members’ loyalty, workers should get
better services from the union.
And if union leaders’ fears come to pass and unhappy members head
for the exits, that’s all the more reason for the Supreme Court to
grant the relief Janus requests. Workers should not be forced to pay
an organization that is not representing their interests.
Click here to respond to the editor about this article |
