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

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more