Skip to main content

What I've Been Reading This Week: Janus v. AFSCME Edition


Early next week, the United States Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in Janus v. AFSCME, one of the most closely watched cases before the Court this term.  I was actually talking with a colleague about this case yesterday and the importance it has for labor and unions long term.  For readers that might have forgotten about this case, the Court will consider whether workers that do not join a union can be forced to pay agency fees (a/k/a "fair share" fees) to cover the costs of having the union represent them.

While unions are legally required to represent all employees in a bargaining unit (including those employees that are not a part of a union), unions have long argued that these agency fees are vital.  Without these agency fees, unions have pointed out that employees would have no incentive to join a union (and pay union dues) but could instead remain non-union members and still enjoy the benefits of having the union represent them without having to pay anything.  Critics of these agency fees have countered that forcing non-union members to pay agency fees is a violation of the Constitution.

As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week.


Janus v. AFSCME:  What Exactly is This Case About

For those needing a refresher about the background of Janus v. AFSCME and what exactly is in dispute, look no further.  Dave Jamieson over at The Huffington Post offers a concise background of the facts of the case and provides a few thoughts on what an adverse ruling for unions could mean for them.  Given that approximately only 10.7% of the U.S. workforce belongs to a union, a Supreme Court decision in favor of Janus could put unions in a further tenuous position.  For unions, a victory in this case could be pivotal for their continued long term survival.


Who Is Funding The Fight Against Agency Fees In Janus v. AFSCME?

The Economic Policy Institute published a report on Wednesday that identified who exactly is funding the fight against agency fees in the Janus v. AFSCME case and pinpointed several powerful foundations which appear to be leading the charge.  I highlight this report not just to show readers how much these groups are invested in the effort to weaken unions via these cases, but also in part because this report does a great job highlighting the relevant Supreme Court cases that came before Janus.  For those looking for a bit of background on how we got to this point, this article is a good place to start.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

Breaking: Labor Secretary Rumored to Be Leaving Administration

A few hours ago, word leaked out that Labor Secretary Marty Walsh (“Walsh”) is in the midst of negotiations to head up the NHL Players Union and leave his position at the Labor Department. Walsh, who has served as the sole Labor Secretary under President Biden, has taken part in a labor renaissance of sorts as support for organized labor has increased during his term as Labor Secretary (although the number of workers that have joined a union over the past two years has not grown as mush as some expected.)  He has also overseen the ongoing negotiations with rail workers over a new contract, although that matter is still on shaky ground and playing out as we speak. As for who might step into the vacant Labor Secretary role, there are already rumblings that President Biden should nominate Deputy Labor Secretary Julie Su (a strong labor advocate) or even a progressive like Senator Bernie Sanders.  Until Walsh officially gives his notice, however, I would expect some/many potential...
Post a Comment
Read more

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie Vetoes Minimum Wage Hike

A few months ago, readers might remember that I pointed out that the New Jersey Legislature had voted to approve a minimum wage hike in the state .  Under the approved legislation, the minimum wage rate would rise to $10.10/hour in the next year and at least $15/hour over the next five.  (The current minimum wage rate in the state is $8.38/hour).  In that article, I had noted that the bill was then going to go before Governor Chris Christie for his approval or veto. As I had suggested previously, I thought that the Governor would likely veto the bill based upon his prior actions and comments on similar legislation.  Well, a few days ago, Governor Christie did just that and vetoed the bill on the grounds that it "would trigger an escalation of wages that will make doing business in New Jersey unfathomable."  Pointing to the increase in hourly minimum wage rates, the Governor referred to the bill as a "really radical increase."  (It is interesting to c...
Post a Comment
Read more