Keyword: janusvafscme
-
The National Education Association thinks Colin Kaepernick is an ideal role model. Many members, however, may take their loyalty elsewhere. And frankly, they should. On July 1, the NEA honored Kaepernick, along with several other persons and organizations, with a “Human and Civil Rights” award in recognition of the former pro-football star’s campaign “to fight racial oppression through education and social justice activism.” The born-again political revolutionary, who these last couple years has been peddling the idea that police are conducting a nationwide pogrom against innocent blacks, accepted the honor with predictable melodrama. “To me, this is bigger than football...
-
My dear brothers and sisters in Christ: The United States Supreme Court on June 27 decided that public sector employees can no longer be required to pay mandatory fees to support unions to which they do not wish to belong. This landmark case, Janus v. AFSCME, involved Mark Janus, a child support specialist at the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services in Springfield, and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, a public-sector union. Janus refused to join the union because he opposes many of its positions, including those taken in collective bargaining. Despite his opposition, for...
-
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Janus v. AFSCME Council 31 is a ruthless and brazen attack on the freedom of working people. It caps off a shocking Supreme Court term, which saw the justices threaten the rights of women, LGBTQ people, Muslims, and now public service workers. The 1.6 million members of AFSCME keep American communities safe and strong through their selfless service. We are social workers, EMTs, corrections officers, school custodians and more. We plow the roads, drive the school buses and pick up the trash. But that is apparently not enough to get a fair hearing before...
-
Plaintiff Mark Janus passes in front of the U.S. Supreme Court after a hearing on February 26, 2018 in Washington, DC. The court is scheduled to hear the case, Janus v. AFSCME, to determine whether states violate their employees' First Amendment rights to require them to join public sector unions which they may not want to associate with. Alex Wong | Getty Images News | Getty Images Plaintiff Mark Janus passes in front of the U.S. Supreme Court after a hearing on February 26, 2018 in Washington, DC. The court is scheduled to hear the case, Janus v. AFSCME, to...
-
The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that pubic sector unions for state and local employees can’t force non-members to pay a “fair-share” union fee. In a 5-4 ruling Tuesday, the court said the extraction of agency fees from non-consenting public sector employees violates the First Amendment. The case centers on an Illinois law, similar to those in 22 other states, that allow public-sector unions to collect a “fair-share fee” from employees for non-political activities like collective bargaining, regardless of whether those employees belong to the union or not. Mark Janus, a state child support specialist at the center of the case,...
-
JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court. Under Illinois law, public employees are forced to subsi dize a union, even if they choose not to join and strongly object to the positions the union takes in collective bar gaining and related activities. We conclude that this arrangement violates the free speech rights of nonmem bers by compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern. We upheld a similar law in Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U. S. 209 (1977), and we recognize the importance of following precedent unless there are strong reasons for...
-
The Supreme Court was sharply divided Monday during high-profile arguments in a case that could deal a blow to public-sector employee unions across the country – and the justice seen as a key vote was not showing his hand. At issue are so-called “fair share” fees that nonmembers pay unions to help cover the costs of contract negotiations. Justices split on the issue 4-4 when it came up two years ago – but with Justice Neil Gorsuch now filling the vacancy left by the late Antonin Scalia, all eyes were on him Monday morning in Washington. Gorsuch, however, said nothing...
-
In what is all but certain to be a terrible blow to organized labor, the Supreme Court announced on Thursday that it will hear Janus v. AFSCME, a case seeking to defund public sector unions. The case presents an issue that was recently before the Court, and where the justices split 4-4 along party lines. Now that Neil Gorsuch occupies the seat that Senate Republicans held open for more than a year until Donald Trump could fill it, he holds the fifth vote to deliver a staggering blow to the union movement. The issue in Janus involves what are sometimes...
|
|
|