Posts tagged Janus v. AFSCME
Union, hospital face more lawsuits from Michigan nurse over dues
August 23, 2024 // Madrina Wells, from Grand Blanc Township, had already sued Ascension Genesys Hospital and Teamsters in July, accusing them of threatening to fire her and a coworker for not signing forms authorizing the union to deduct dues from their paychecks. Now, Wells is filing additional complaints against those organizations for deducting union dues out of her paycheck anyway, without her providing the consent forms.
The Cases Against Sectoral Bargaining: The Practical Case
August 11, 2024 // The effect of sectoral bargaining on union corruption would be unclear. Scholars of union corruption have blamed enterprise bargaining combined with union monopoly representation for America’s unusually high levels of labor racketeering. There is truth to this, but it is also not the case that American unions involved in industries with more-sectoral-style approaches are “cleaner.” The New York City garment industry, which was exempted from various Taft-Hartley regulations on union conduct, was believed by the federal government to have been Mob influenced as recently as the 1990s. More recently, the United Auto Workers, which conducts a sort of pseudo-sectoral bargaining with the unionized Detroit Three automakers by “patterning” its contracts, was forced into a regime change after the largest union corruption scandal of the 21st century. Putting more power in the hands of America’s long-standing class of union officials, who are known for having their hands in the cookie jar, certainly is not an obvious approach to reducing or surveilling corruption in organized labor.
Liberty Justice Center Sues New Jersey Union For Violating Plumber’s Constitutional Rights
August 5, 2024 // Upon learning about his rights under the Janus decision, Giangrasso sent a letter to UA Local 9 resigning his union membership and requesting an end to the dues deduction. However, the union refused, arguing that the Janus decision didn’t apply because the deductions were termed “assessments” rather than “dues.”
CUNY Professors Ask U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Case Challenging Forced Association with Antisemitism-Linked Union
July 23, 2024 // “Knight did not sanction a state forcing Jewish faculty members who are ardent Zionists to accept the representation of a union that supports policies they consider anti-Israel,” the petition continues. “The Court should grant this petition to clarify Knight and make clear that the First Amendment protects individuals’ right to dissociate themselves from advocacy groups that support policies contrary to their deeply held beliefs.”
Op-Ed: Union membership is now political. So can the government still require people to associate with a union?
July 10, 2024 // Since then, employees have argued that exclusive union representation does violate the First Amendment. Exclusivity saddles them with the “services” of nakedly political bargaining agents. Lower courts have turned those arguments aside mostly because of an older case, Minnesota Board for Community Colleges v. Knight, which suggested that exclusive representation was okay in the public sector. Knight seemed to say that when the government bargains about working conditions, it can choose its own bargaining partner. And if it chooses one exclusive union to bargain with, that choice burdens no one’s associational rights. But whether or not that’s what Knight meant, the decision has no bearing on private-sector bargaining. In the private sector, the government does not choose its own bargaining partner; it imposes one on private parties. And some of those parties object to their unions’ political views—views that are increasingly central to unionization itself. So private-sector bargaining raises a different question: can the government force private citizens to associate with a union when that union’s core purpose is increasingly political? (Elsewhere, I have argued at greater length that it cannot.)
As Janus anniversary draws nears, public workers retain right to union representation
June 28, 2024 // A union is required to represent even workers who are not members, due to its “duty of fair representation.” “It’s crucial that public employees understand the duty of fair representation to ensure their rights are protected,” Delie told CapCon. Unions have this duty because they also have the right of “exclusive representation.” Under it, the union negotiates with management as the exclusive representative of a group of employees known as a bargaining unit. Members and nonmembers alike are part of the bargaining unit, and the union must represent them all, including at any disciplinary hearings they may face.
MEMBERSHIP IN SEIU 1000, CALIFORNIA’S LARGEST STATE EMPLOYEES UNION, FALLS BELOW 50 PERCENT
June 20, 2024 // In May 2018, the month before Janus was decided, 96,229 state employees worked under SEIU 1000 contracts, effectively all of whom had union dues or fees deducted from their paychecks by the state. The next month, following the Supreme Court’s ruling, the number of represented employees with union payroll deductions had dropped to 58,953 — a membership rate of 61.4 percent — reflecting the loss of fee payments from nonmembers rendered unconstitutional by Janus.
Op-Ed: SEIU Brings Progressive Union Politics to Philly
June 4, 2024 // While serving as president of SEIU Local 2015, Verrett faced one of the largest union staff labor strikes in American history after accusations of union-busting, surveillance, assault, and intimidation. Verrett’s dedication to SEIU’s progressive politics, however, is unmatched. In the words of the union’s new leader, America’s “ugly, insidious, anti-black racist structures” inform her decision to make “eradicating structural and anti-black racism a core strategy” of union operations.
National Right to Work Foundation Issues Notice to University of California Graduate Students Amid UAW Strike Orders
May 21, 2024 // The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation has released a special legal notice to graduate students, teaching assistants, and researchers across the University of California system. The notice comes as officials of the United Auto Workers (UAW) union have ordered a strike at UC Santa Cruz over the university’s position on the Israel-Hamas conflict and related campus protests.
OPINION: L.A. Teacher’s Fight With Union Appealed To Supreme Court
April 23, 2024 // Laird refused to dismiss his lawsuit, and with good reason. Because his case is about more than the return of his money. In fact, Laird is donating the entire amount he received from UTLA to a nonprofit group that helps disadvantaged students in the Los Angeles area. When judges at both the lower court level and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the union, the Freedom Foundation filed a request with the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in. Glenn Laird’s case is about a judicial acknowledgment and vindication of his First Amendment rights by a federal judge. As long as unions can cut checks using their members’ dues dollars to make lawsuits disappear, judges will never have the opportunity to rule on the actual constitutional issues, rendering the First Amendment and Janus decision meaningless. “Hopefully the Supreme Court will find my case worthy of making a ruling,” concluded Laird. “Janus set the stage, but now we need to build on that precedent so unions and lower court judges don’t continue to ignore the Supremes.”