AFT FILES AMICUS BRIEF IN JANUS CASE

The American Federation of Teachers put out a press release announcing that the Union has filed an Amicus brief in the case of Janus vs AFSCME.

For those living in a cave (far too many public employees fit this category I fear) who have not been following developments, this is the case that looks to make union dues optional in the public sector. The argument from Mark Janus is that agency fees for non-union members violate free speech rights of public employees who do not join a union. Janus contends that everything a union does with a government employer is political so forcing public sector workers to pay fair share fees is a violation of First Amendment free speech rights.

The argument from the defense is that since all employees benefit from the collective bargaining unions do, everyone has to pay for collective bargaining. No free riders.

Here is what AFT President Randi Weingarten said in the AFT press release:

“The fight for prosperity and opportunity for all, embodied by the labor movement, is an anathema to the corporate backers of this case—the people funding it are the same people attacking civil rights, attacking voting rights and attacking public education.

“This case warps and weaponizes the First Amendment by enabling one person’s complaint—without any record or evidence—to undermine the interests of millions of workers across the country who benefit from collective bargaining. And it suggests that collective bargaining, which operates just like any other workplace consultation process, should draw far more constitutional scrutiny than its equivalents.

“The current law has preserved labor peace for four decades by balancing the interests of workers and employers and fostering partnerships to improve school districts and other public sector workplaces. We argue that engaging in collective bargaining is constitutionally no different than the state paying a consultant to advise it on employment relations issues. Further, the plaintiff’s argument is a dishonest rejection of established legal precedent, reaffirmed many times, and therefore must fail.

“I am confident that if the nine justices of the Supreme Court consider this case on the merits, not ideologically, they would agree.”

Unfortunately Randi, I think most of us would agree that five of those nine justices (John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy and Neal Gorsuch) will consider the case on ideological grounds and will bend the constitutional reasoning to fit their right wing point of view. I fully expect the unions to lose the case and what happens after that depends on how the decision is written and what the reaction is.

If you want to know why so few union members are shedding tears over the probable loss in this case, read this part of Randi's statement very closely, "The current law has preserved labor peace for four decades by balancing the interests of workers and employers and fostering partnerships to improve school districts and other public sector workplaces." She's kind of arguing something we all know: that we are company unions. Those partnerships she talks about are dominated by management. See NYC teachers for evidence.