Janus v. AFSCME Case
A year ago, in June 2018 unions across the USA were disappointed when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Janus in the much anticipated ruling in the Janus v. AFSCME case. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) (Feigenbaum & Hertel-Fernandez, 2018). In the case, Mark Janus, child support specialist at the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family services worked under a contracted that was negotiated between the state and the AFSCME. AFSCME is a union that has an obligation to advocate for each member in the bargaining unit equally since it is mandated by the law. However, Janus did not want anything to do with the union.
While in Illinois government workers are unionized, not all civil servants are members in unions since the state cannot force workers to join a union. However, Illinois is one of the twenty two states across the USA that allows unions to charge non-members such as Janus (Semuels, 2018). The charges are grounded on the premise that even non-members enjoy the benefits associated with collective bargaining. Therefore, these charges are commonly referred as the “fair share fees” or the “agency fees.” In the other 28 states, fair share fees are outlawed since state laws forbid unions from charging the non-members any type of fee.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In the case, the plaintiff, Janus, maintained that the union, AFSCME violated his First Amendment rights through requiring him to pay the fee which he argues basically forced him to speak through the union. The union defended these charges arguing that non-unionized members such as Mark Janus enjoyed the benefits associated with collective bargaining including but not limited to higher wages, generous benefits and different forms of job protections that unions often negotiate on behalf of its members (Feigenbaum & Hertel-Fernandez, 2018). The Supreme Court decision that sided with Janus implies that the court imposed the right-to-work rule in the 22 states that were yet to do so. Indeed, the Supreme Court 5-4 ruling illustrated that the court reversed their decision in the Abood v. Detroit Board of Education in 1977 that had upheld the constitutionality of the fair share fees. In that particular ruling, the court maintained that dissenting employees could adopt other ways to air their grievances with their unions while still paying the agency fee (Feigenbaum & Hertel-Fernandez, 2018). Essentially, the decision in 1977 implied that the government interests in preventing free-riding outweighed workers free speech rights. However, the recent decision in the Janus v. AFSCME came at a big blow to unions across the USA and subsequently to many government workers including teachers.
Potential Impact of the Case
In the past half a decade, there has been an evident nationwide loss of funds in the education sector. As a result, many teachers have been asked to take freeze pays or cuts or take up more classes or contribute more towards pension funds and healthcare. These changes imply that majority of the teachers are currently dissatisfied and as such revolting through striking in efforts of better pay or improved working environment in the school setting (Mccollow, 2017). Last year, the USA witnessed several strikes in different states including an unprecedented nine-day strike in West Virginia, Oklahoma, Arizona and Kentucky to name just a few (Semuels, 2018). Many analysts assert that revolting in conservatives’ states is due to weak labor rights which often leave the teachers worse off forcing them to adopt extreme techniques to voice their grievances. In these conservative states, the state does not require the school districts to bargain collectively with the teachers unions, therefore leaving the teachers worse off. Indeed, the argument goes that if the states insisted on the local school district bargaining with the unions, the teachers’ pay will be higher as such less instances of strikes. In my opinion, the Supreme Court ruling in the Janus v. AFSCME will have similar consequences.
The court ruling against AFSCME implies that the entire US public sector is a right to work zone since employees are no longer obligated to pay unions to bargain on their behalf. The decision is likely to affect teacher’s union membership in addition to adversely affecting revenues of the unions and subsequently their operations. Indeed, previous members of the different teachers unions in the 22 states in the USA have an incentive to become free-riders since their working conditions would be negotiated irrespective of the fact of whether they are members or not. In the case, Janus argued that he did not share the union’s perspectives and desire to negotiate for higher wages since AFSCME failed to take into account the fiscal crises in Illinois (Coulson, 2010). However, it is essential to mention the previous Abrood case which appeared in the Supreme Court in 1977 indicated that the agency fees that unions covered the collective bargaining and did not take into account the political and ideological activities.
The decision will reduce union members including membership in teachers’ unions which translate to a reduction in the revenue in these institutions. Subsequently, with fewer funds, the unions will be forced to hire fewer representatives, be involved in fewer cases and organize fewer members than they once did. The reduction in the number of members that the unions organize in addition to the decrease in revenue indicates the teachers will have lower pay and fewer benefits (Strunk, Cowen, & Strunk, 2015). One research estimated that the wages of state and local employees would drop by more than 3.5 percent and the salaries of public school teachers would drop by more than 5.5 percent (Feigenbaum & Hertel-Fernandez, 2018). Moreover, since the decision implies less incentive for teachers to join unions, it is evident that the ruling is likely to considerably reduce the political impact of unions’ particularly in negotiates with the local school district. Considering the fact that the current decrease of funds in the education sector pinpoints the importance of unions for collective bargaining, the ruling in the Janus v. AFSCME is likely to directly increase dissatisfaction among teachers across the USA.
While the ruling in the Janus V. AFSCME has led to the reduction of membership and revenue to many unions in the past year, it did not imply the end of the public-sector unions in the USA. Prior to the decision 28 states restricted unions from charging non-members any sort of fee yet unions have been able to effectively continue with their operations as collective bargaining tools. It is important for teachers to recognize that unions offer a way to keep pace and manage cuts to government spending. Indeed, the fact that teachers have downed their tools in several states to protest salaries that do not keep pace with inflation reflect on the importance of collective bargaining. One of the largest teachers’ unions in West Virginia, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) added more than 1250 members after the strike even though the state was a right-to-work even prior to the ruling in the Janus v. AFSCME (Feigenbaum & Hertel-Fernandez, 2018). The unions are currently motivating membership through arguing that unions are advocates for the teacher rights are will work against racial injustice and equal distribution of resources rather than concentrating on salary wages.
Future Concerns and New Legislations
One year after the Janus v. AFSCME ruling many states that previously supported the fair share fees passed other laws to ensure unions gained members. For instance, in California, unions have a right to meet with public employees immediately after the public sector employees start working. Additionally, another law ensures the privacy of the contact information of the public sector employees including their phone numbers and email addresses so that anti-union agencies would have problems contacting new recruiters (Feigenbaum & Hertel-Fernandez, 2018). Therefore, it is evident that states that are in support of the role of unions in ensuring satisfaction among public employees have implemented laws that ensure unions gain more members after losing the revenues from non-members through the agency fee.
It is apparent unions have to devise different marketing strategies to gain members to recover revenues lost from the fair share fees. Indeed, unions should focus on advocating for teachers and the community as a whole. For instance, it is vital for these institutions to be bargain for more than better pay and working environment to encompass fighting against social injustices such as racism and gender discrimination. It is important to acknowledge the power that teacher labor unions wedge in the political arena depending on the number of members. Many different statues come into play in collective bargaining between union members and employers that extend beyond bargaining for better working environment for the teachers (Strunk, Cowen, & Strunk, 2015). Additionally, it is important for teachers as public service employees to recognize the role of unions in fighting for not only better wages but also against social injustices such as racism and supporting the community through advocating for equal distribution of resources.
References
Coulson, A. J. (2010). The effects of teachers unions on American education. Cato Journal , 155-171.
Feigenbaum, J., & Hertel-Fernandez, A. (2018, June 27). The Supreme Court just dealt unions a big blow in Janus. Here's what you need to know about the political fall out. Retrieved July 2019, 2019, from The Washington: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/06/27/the-supreme-court-just-dealt-unions-a-big-blow-in-janus-heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-political-fallout/?utm_term=.f9311cc5e5d5
Mccollow, J. (2017). Teachers unions. Oxford Research Encylopedia of Education , 1-26.
Semuels, A. (2018, June 27). Is this the end of public-sector unions in America. Retrieved July 11, 2019, from The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/janus-afscme-public-sector-unions/563879/
Strunk, K., Cowen, J., & Strunk, K. (2015). The impact of teachers' unions on educational outcomes: What we know and what we need to learn. Economics of Educational Review , 1-16.
