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, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more