Workers say the unions defy the Janus ruling is threatening a new lawsuit

in the vicinity


Napolitano: SCOTUS strikes hard against the public sector, the trade unions

Judge Napolitano’s chambers: judge Andrew Napolitano explains the relevance of the Supreme court decision against mandatory Union dues.

Despite the landmark judgment of the Supreme court this summer, barring public sector unions do not require to pay members, the so-called Agency fees that workers in a number of States, say, trade unions are either flat-out the decision or the establishment of a frustrating maze of procedures ignore to avoid technical barriers to compliance.

The June decision in Janus v. AFSCME sent shock waves through organized labor in the United States, not only maintains that the public unions violated the First Amendment by taking money from unwilling workers ‘paychecks to Fund the collective bargaining, but also that the employees must clearly and expressly consent” be raised prior to any fees or charges.

Janus could in the end unions cost hundreds of millions of dollars in California alone, where the workers say the filed a previous lawsuit, the case apply retroactively, claiming that the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the members not by their “clear” consent, but intricate and difficult “opt-out” procedure. The country’s largest trade Union, the 3-million-member National Education Association, announced that it will cut almost $40 MILLION. from the own budget, to Janus, to fears, to lose there would be hundreds of thousands of members.


Faced with the challenges of the workers-rights advocates say some of the unions and the governments of the member States have decided to effectively defy the Supreme court.

“We see great problems in the entire country,” Diana Rickert, vice president of the Liberty Justice Center, the plaintiffs represented in the Janus case in the Supreme court, told Fox News. “There is almost no government in America, in complete accordance with the Janus-judgment.”

She said this includes the trade unions, the calls for on the search for “clearly” agree with the members, Janus, or even with intimidation tactics to keep members on the rolls.

While the Liberty-Justice-has sent Center, cease-and-desist letters to 11 countries, the request from Ohio to New York, that state officials said compliance with Janus, Rickert, litigation will be necessary, in some cases, the States force you to follow the law.

“What we are opposed to a national manipulation campaign of the government, the trade unions, that they want to stand in the way of workers exercising their rights,” said Rickert. “The government of the union officials around the country trying to scare and intimidate people into maintaining the membership through threats – they say things like “your salary will go down, if you lose from the union’ or ‘you’ll have your benefits.'”


In other cases, in States, including California and Minnesota, Rickert said, the employees were told that you can.the trade unions on some of the special window in the future

This was allegedly the case in Washington state, where several workers sued the government last month, after being told they would have to wait until an “escape” time in the next year to leave their Union. The Washington-based conservative liberty Foundation brought the case against the Washington Federation of state employees, saying it is “under pressure” and misled employees.


The freedom Foundation announced late last month that Janus had the SEIU “no choice” but to settle a lawsuit brought by public sector, the nurses, claiming that their Union was skimming fees from your paycheck, without your consent. The union will be provided the charges and also agreed to stop collecting fees clear permission missing.

The second part has proven something of a sticking point for the public unions. Rickert said that many state government, the employers are still the injury had not agreed to Janus by obtaining clear and the consent of existing members to join the trade Union before the Janus-if you pay in the face of a much narrower choice of payment, mandatory Agency fees, or the decision of the union, and in many cases, a similar or the same amount of money.

This is also a Problem in the pending Washington case, in which the freedom Foundation argues, “it is impossible for a worker to not have knowingly waived a right which was recognised by the court, until the Janus ruling was issued.”

The SEIU did not immediately respond to Fox News’ request for comment. But in a statement shortly after the Janus decision, Greg Kelley, President of SEIU Healthcare Illinois Indiana Missouri & Kansas, announced the successful fight against the ruling.

“What the court and these groups do not realize … is that workers should not be deterred by such decisions and will continue to organize and unite in order to win, fair wages and social benefits, while also providing the care and services that taxpayers want and deserve,” Kelley said.

There are signs that can fight, will not soon be over.

Some legal experts, including UCLA Law Professor and First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh, have suggested that States may be able to make a constitutional end-run around Janus, by directly funding the unions via General tax revenue, instead of the money directly from individual employee paychecks. Officials in a few States, including Hawaii, swum measures along these lines, Rickert said, would lead to additional legal challenges grounded in the same fundamental principle.

“This case is said about the workers a choice and a voice,” Rickert. “No deception, intimidation or coercion, the people in the trade Union membership.”

Fox News’ Kaitlyn Schallhorn contributed to this report.

Gregg Re is an editor for Fox News. Follow him on Twitter @gregg_re.

Follow us

Don't be shy, get in touch. We love meeting interesting people and making new friends.

Most popular