Posts tagged Janus
Op-ed: If the justices don’t reinforce their Janus ruling soon, unions will ignore it to death
January 20, 2026 // In the case of Janus, unions and their allies in the judiciary have grown increasingly brazen over the years in their contempt for the ruling. And yet the justices have steadfastly refused to revisit and give it teeth. And they’ve had plenty of chances. Between 2018 and 2023, more than 70 Janus-related cases were appealed to the Supreme Court, and there have been more since. Not one has been accepted for oral argument, let alone decided in the plaintiff’s favor.
California Just Blew Past Last Year’s Record — And We’re Still Climbing
November 7, 2025 // California public employees are opting out of their unions in record numbers thanks to the work of the Freedom Foundation. Last year, 16,500 chose freedom over union control, while this year we’ve already eclipsed that mark by more than 20 percent with a few months of the year left – at over 20,000 opt outs! This has cost the unions an estimated $17,100,00 in one year alone and will only compound moving forward.
Puerto Rico Public Workers Defend First Amendment Right to Stop Union Dues Payments in Federal Court Arguments
October 31, 2025 // Two arguments held this week at First Circuit Court of Appeals involve rights under landmark Janus v. AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court decision
Seven years after Janus, public employees still can’t quit their unions
October 24, 2025 // Seven years after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Janus v. AFSCME decision established that public employees cannot be compelled to pay union dues, a troubling pattern has emerged: unions nationwide are systematically obstructing workers’ rights to resign. Consider Chaquan May, a California in-home caregiver, who has spent more than two years trying to resign from SEIU Local 2015.
Commentary: When fighting Trump, take union claims with a grain of salt
October 7, 2025 // Government unions faced another momentous reform seven years ago when the Supreme Court ruled in Janus v. AFSCME. The court held that public sector workers have a First Amendment right to completely withdraw from union membership and dues. In essence, the court created a nationwide right-to-work law for all public sector workers, including teachers, police officers, firefighters, and all other federal, state, and local government workers. No longer would they have to join or pay a union to keep their job. Government unions hated this ruling, of course. In a desperate attempt to sway the Supreme Court, union-paid prognosticators predicted massive negative economic effects if the court ruled against unions.
US union membership declining in ‘right-to-work’ states, report reveals
September 8, 2025 // Right-to-work laws allow workers represented by unions to stop paying dues for the services and benefits they receive through union representation, depleting resources from labor unions. Public sector workers in all 50 states have also had their collective bargaining rights stripped through the imposition of right-to-work laws by the US supreme court’s 2018 decision Janus v AFSCME. In 2024, states that protect collective bargaining saw an increase of nearly 10,000 union members, compared with the loss of 200,000 union members in states with right-to-work laws.
Op-ed: Celebrating the Decline of Big Labor
September 2, 2025 // New York and California have 17 percent of U.S. workers, but almost 30 percent of U.S. union members. The states with the lowest rates include the Carolinas, which do not allow collective bargaining in the public sector. More states should look to abolish public-sector collective bargaining, as Utah did this year. And more states should pick up where Republicans left off in the early-to-mid 2010s by passing right-to-work laws. The first order of business should be restoring Michigan’s law that Democrats repealed. In 24 states, private-sector workers can still be coerced to join or financially support a union.
Eaton Worker’s Federal Complaint Sheds Light on Union Fee Threats in St. Louis
August 29, 2025 // Another critic, the nonprofit Institute for the American Worker (I4AW), highlighted the LMRDA’s origins in addressing labor corruption and stressed the importance of robust financial reporting. I4AW expressed concern that the current proposal focuses too heavily on reducing paperwork rather than preserving oversight. They recommended reconsidering OLMS’s 2020 proposal, which raised thresholds more moderately and introduced a “long form” LM-2 for the largest unions. I4AW also cited recent criminal convictions for embezzlement and financial misconduct involving union officials whose unions would have benefited from the proposed threshold increase, underscoring the need for strong reporting to prevent abuse.
Lower courts ignore Supreme Court precedent to force union payments
August 2, 2025 // The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to answer that question. In an amicus brief filed July 24, the two organizations ask the Court to reaffirm and enforce the constitutional standard it set in the 2018 Janus v. AFSCME decision: that no money may be taken from a public employee’s paycheck for a union without the employee’s clear and affirmative consent. The brief supports two public workers who are respectively suing the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees as well as the International Union of Operating Engineers. Marcus Todd and Terry Klee
SCOTUS asked to consider case of unions refusing to open mail from disgruntled members
July 14, 2025 // “We’ve seen unions agree to process opt-out requests only during a two-week annual window,” noted Freedom Foundation CEO Aaron Withe. “We’ve seen unions go to court trying to prevent us from informing their members about their constitutional rights – paid for with their own dues money. And when all else fails, we’ve seen them forge signatures on membership and dues-authorization forms.” “In this case, they weren’t even that sophisticated,” he continued. “They simply asserted a right to refuse to open mail from the Freedom Foundation because they knew these packages were likely to contain dozens of opt-out requests.”