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

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 i...
Post a Comment
Read more

What I've Been Reading This Week

Recently, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Commissioner, Chai Feldblum, had her re-nomination on the brink, after Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee took steps to block it .  Readers might have heard that late last week, Commissioner Feldblum's re-nomination quietly slipped away and she tweeted out a thank you to supporters and friends, acknowledging that her time at the EEOC was over.  While there has not been much in the way of a further update in regard to that ongoing saga, we wait to see how things will play out at the EEOC, now that it has lost a quorum until additional Commissioners are confirmed by the Senate. For the time being, there are other developments for readers to review this week.  In particular, I call attention to the article on managing a wage & hour audit by the Department of Labor as well as steps an employer can take to better ensure compliance with the ADA. As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. ...
Post a Comment
Read more