I first saw the news on Twitter!<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Tuesday that non-union public-sector workers who are nevertheless represented by a union for bargaining purposes cannot be required to pay union fees. Janus v. AFSCME hinged on the case of Mark Janus, a child-support specialist in Illinois who argued that he should not be forced to pay fees to his union. Existing law, as determined by the 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, states that all employees must pay a fee to account for the benefits of collective bargaining that unions offer.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
https:\/\/www.thedailybeast.com\/scotus-rules-against-unions-in-janus-case<\/p>\n
Very important case!
\nOpen Thread.<\/p>\nupdate: The ruling itself is here: https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/17pdf\/16-1466_2b3j.pdf<\/p>\n
Tidbit:
\nHow much was the AFSCME agency fee in Illinois? “Here it was 78.06% of full union dues”. That’s a lot of money!<\/p>\nSounds like “opt-in” may be required. I’m sure unions would have preferred “opt-out”. Both the state and the union are prohibitted from extracting, so there isn’t going to be some work around where the “state” makes it a rule to take the money and then hand it over to the union.<\/p>\n
3. For these reasons, States and public-sector unions may no longer extract agency fees from nonconsenting employees. The First Amendment is violated when money is taken from nonconsenting employees for a public-sector union; employees must choose to sup-port the union before anything is taken from them. Accordingly, nei-ther an agency fee nor any other form of payment to a public-sector union may be deducted from an employee, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay. Pp. 48\u00e2\u20ac\u201c49. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
I first saw the news on Twitter! The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Tuesday that non-union public-sector workers who are nevertheless represented by a union for bargaining purposes cannot be required to pay union fees. Janus v. AFSCME hinged on the case of Mark Janus, a child-support specialist in Illinois who argued that he should not … Continue reading SCOTUS RULES!<\/span>