Posts tagged Janus v. AFSCME
Union membership is plateauing among California state workers, data show. Here’s why
December 23, 2023 // Across state government, just over 64% of employees paid union dues in October, according to the most recent available data from the State Controller’s Office, which deducts dues from union members’ paychecks. That’s down less than 0.5% from last October. The state’s total number of rank-and-file employees increased by about 1,580 people from October 2022. Meanwhile, the number of dues-paying members increased by just under 330 employees. These trends buck previous years’ patterns, which saw decreases in total staff as well as dues-paying members.
Commentary: Public Employees Leaving Their Unions in Record Numbers
December 18, 2023 // Regardless of when the Supreme Court decides to weigh in on the corrupt unions and complicit left-leaning judges thumbing their noses at the 2018 ruling, people are choosing to exercise the rights recognized in Janus.
Mackinac Center Asks Supreme Court to Clarify Janus Decision
December 15, 2023 // The Supreme Court decided in Janus that public sector workers cannot be forced to support a union’s political speech as a condition of keeping their jobs. This decision protected millions of workers’ First Amendment rights. But the Mackinac Center recognized that the Janus ruling could do even more. Shortly after the court ruled, the Mackinac Center launched Workers for Opportunity, an initiative to advance the worker freedoms outlined in the case. In the years since, WFO has educated workers and lawmakers across the nation on what Janus requires. For one thing, public sector workers should only be considered to have waived their First Amendment right not to join a union if they do so with knowing, informed and regular consent.
STOCKTON INTERPRETER’S LAWSUIT SHOWS HOW FAR CSEA WILL GO TO MAKE AN EXAMPLE OF DISSENTERS
December 7, 2023 // To justify its actions, the union claimed Baker had signed a subsequent dues-authorization form in 2020 that included the opt-out window provision. But when she asked to see the document, the union refused. Through her attorneys, Baker was finally able to negotiate a settlement with CSEA in July 2022. Under its terms, her CSEA membership and dues deductions would stop immediately, and she would be reimbursed for the dues that had been deducted from her pay since April. In return, Baker agreed to release CSEA, its officers and agents from any and all claims, demands, obligations or causes of action through the date of execution of the settlement agreement, including claims for legal fees. The union also acknowledged for the first time that Baker had not been a member since April 2022 and enclosed a copy of the dues authorization she had allegedly signed two years earlier.
Recent Legal Battle Latest in War to Protect the American Worker
December 6, 2023 // To justify its actions, the union claimed Baker had signed a subsequent dues-authorization form in 2020 that included the opt-out window provision. But when she asked to see the document, the union refused. After being forced to hire an attorney, Baker was finally able to negotiate a settlement with CSEA in July 2022. Under its terms, her dues deductions would stop immediately, and she would be reimbursed for the dues that had been deducted from her pay since April. The union also acknowledged for the first time that Baker had not been considered a member since April 2022, which was news to Baker. CSEA also enclosed a copy of the dues authorization she had allegedly signed two years earlier. The document had an e-signature rather than a “wet signature,” and Baker denies ever having approved it.
RECORDS CONFIRM RUMORS OF PERSONNEL TURMOIL AT WFSE
November 29, 2023 // As of August 2023, the number of state agency workers represented by WFSE—its pool of potential members—had increased to 38,872, but its dues-paying membership had still shrunk to 23,303, leaving it with a membership rate of only 58 percent. Unless WFSE embraces values like transparency and customer service instead of secrecy and partisan politics, it should expect more of the same no matter who sits atop the organization.
Janus had a large impact on union membership, five years later
November 22, 2023 //
City Workers Ditch Unions, Skip Dues, Following Supreme Court Ruling
November 2, 2023 // Pre-Janus, public sector employees had the option to explicitly opt out of union membership thanks to an earlier Supreme Court decision but still had to pay “agency fees” out of their paychecks to the unions. Union leaders, including New York City’s Municipal Labor Committee, warned before the decision of potentially large declines in union membership if signing up became optional. Any dramatic loss of dues-paying union members could threaten unions’ operations or even their ability to exist – a possibility on the horizon in some so-called “right to work” states.
Supreme Court ruled public sector workers cannot be forced to pay dues; unions take them anyway
October 28, 2023 // After the Janus ruling, Ms. Quezambra sought to invoke her rights to stop the involuntary union dues payments, demanding she be refunded going back to 2013. The union refused on the grounds that she had allowed the union to make the deductions. This was news to Ms. Quezambra. The union “presented Ms. Quezambra a membership and dues deduction authorization card containing a forged signature that she purportedly signed. Ms. Quezambra did not sign this card,” her complaint states.
Say it again, Supremes: Forced union dues in government are illegal
October 27, 2023 // Alaska’s largest public sector union fought the new system in court. In May, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled for the union and ordered the state to revert to the old system. Now the US Supreme Court is being urged to weigh in. If the Alaska Supreme Court decision stands, Janus will have been neutered. So the state of Alaska, 11 other states, and eight public policy institutes are saying to the justices, in effect: “You made your decision. Now enforce it.” Public sector workers who choose to support a union must be free to do so. Employees who choose not to must be equally free. The Supreme Court said as much five years ago, but it needs to say so again.