Understanding the Janus Decision

46 Comments Post your own or leave a trackback: Trackback URL

1. Joe says:

   June 24, 2018 at 12:13 pm

   As per the video: a small group of filthy rich individuals and groups (libertarian think tanks) have financed this assault on worker rights and public unions. The same group of filthy rich plutocrats who want to privatize the schools, destroy the public school system. Trump is loading up the courts with far right justices who will have lifetime tenures and who will rule against unions, worker rights and public schools, public anything (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.). We have to vote out the GOP.

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. Joe says:

   June 24, 2018 at 1:03 pm

   It’s happening in NJ:CAMDEN – A Gloucester County educator is the lead plaintiff in a proposed class-action lawsuit that targets the state’s teacher unions.

   The suit, brought in the name of Clearview Regional High School teacher Ann Smith, challenges the constitutionality of “representation fees” charged to non-union members by the New Jersey Education Association and its affiliates.

   It asks a federal judge to bar such payments and to order unions to return all funds collected through representation fees. It also argues against a recently enacted state law allegedly intended to discourage union objectors like Smith.

   Smith referred a reporter to attorney Jonathan Mitchell of Austin, Texas. He did not respond to a request for comment.

   The suit, filed in federal court in Camden, has political overtones in a state where teachers’ unions are a powerful ally of Gov. Phil Murphy and other Democratic leaders.

   Mitchell, a former solicitor general of Texas. recently brought a similar suit targeting California’s largest teacher’s unon. He’s been nominated by President Donald Trump to chair an agency that recommends changes to government procedures.

   Defendants in the local suit include the NJEA, the National Education Association, as well as Murphy and other state officials.

   Clearview’s school board is named as a representative of similar organizations that enforce collection of representation fees at districts across the state.

   NJEA spokesman Steven Baker declined to comment Friday on a lawsuit he had not seen.

   He said more than 3,000 public school workers pay representation fees to the union, which has more than 200,000 dues-paying members.
   “NJEA fully complies with the current laws,” Baker said. “Should those laws change, we will fully comply with the revised laws.”

   He noted the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule this month on a lawsuit brought by Mark Janus, a public employee in Illinois who opposes mandatory union fees.

   “Regardless of the court’s ruling in that matter, NJEA members will continue to advocate for students and great public schools,” Baker asserted. He said the union’s members “will not let outsiders with an anti-worker agenda take away what they have worked so hard to earn and build.”

   The local suit seeks to represents all current and past employees of the state “or any of its subunits, including any school district,” if those people were non-union members compelled to pay representation fees.

   The local lawsuit contends mandatory fees violate Smith’s constitutional rights because “she does not wish to subsidize the union’s activities.”

   “She refuses to join the NJEA or its affiliates because she disapproves of the union’s political and ideological advocacy, as well as the excessively high salaries that are paid to the union’s leaders,” the lawsuit says.

   It acknowledges Smith’s union “has tried to accommodate” her objections, allowing the teacher to direct the undisclosed representation free from her $82,604 annual salary to Habitat for Humanity.

   But the suit contends Smith “has a constitutional right to refrain from joining or lending financial support to a public-employee union, and she cannot be subject to any financial penalty for that decision.”

   The suit also challenges two provisions of a state law enacted last month, The “Workplace Democracy Enhancement Act.” The bill’s sponsors included three South Jersey Democrats – Senate President Stephen Sweeney of West Deptford; Sen. Paul Moriarty of Washington Township and Assemblywoman Gabriela Mosquera of Blackwood.

   One of the provisions requires public employers to give unions the names and contact information for all workers, according to the suit. The suit argues this “unconstitutionally chills” the First Amendment rights of employees who choose not to join or financially support a union.

   A second contested provision allows public employees to revoke consent to deduction of union fees only “during the 10 days following each anniversary date of their employment.”

   The suit argues a worker “has a constitutional right to revoke membership and financial support of a public employee union at any time.”

   Jim Walsh: @jimwalsh_cp; 856-486-2646; jwalsh@gannettnj.com
   https://www.courierpostonline.com/story/news/local/south-jersey/2018/06/17/clearview-teacher-ann-smith-njea-lawsuit/705349002/

   LikeLike

   Reply
   • Joe says:

     June 24, 2018 at 1:08 pm

     Ann Smith, a teacher in NJ, is represented by Jonathan Mitchell, a former solicitor general of Texas?! What the heck. This is fishy and sounds like some kind of set up from hidden in the shadows plutocrats….but OF COURSE! Hey Ann Smith, nobody put a gun to your head to work in a unionized public school. Her salary is $86K+, thanks to her union and yet she wants to stab the union in the back. Wow, talk about chutzpa.

     LikeLike

     Reply
     • Joe says:

       June 24, 2018 at 1:23 pm

       Correction: her salary is $82,604. Egg. On. Face.

       LikeLike

     • dianeravitch says:

       June 24, 2018 at 2:10 pm

       Not much egg.

       LikeLike

     • Joel Herman (@jwherman11) says:

       June 24, 2018 at 3:14 pm

       Janus is absolutely right Unions are inherently political. The purpose of politics is to determine how we distribute the fruits and burdens of the economy. The purpose of unions is to secure those benefits for its members while ensuring the burdens are not too great. Politics is not about God Gays or Guns. The right has made it about anything that won’t hurt the corporate bottom line. Corporations are merely a method of earning wealth while limiting liability. So they are merely a pass-through of that wealth. The top 1% owning 40 % of the shares and taking in 82% of the gains.

       However, if it is a violation of free speech rights to collect fair share fees; then it is certainly a violation of free speech rights to prevent secondary boycotts. I would take that trade in a heartbeat.

       If the Court, when challenged on that, can somehow figure a convoluted way to not give Unions the free speech rights of corporations as individuals. Then it is worth noting the preamble of the NLRA.

       “The denial by some employers of the right of employees to organize and the refusal by some employers to accept the procedure of collective bargaining lead to strikes and other forms of industrial strife or unrest”

       Perhaps the oligarchy should be reminded that the Soviet Army did not do as expected.

       LikeLike

   • retired teacher says:

     June 24, 2018 at 2:31 pm

     If unions lose, they should work to pass a law that does not allow the free riders to benefit from any union contract. Freeloaders should be left to negotiate on their own.

     LikeLike

     Reply
     • Joel Herman (@jwherman11) says:

       June 24, 2018 at 3:18 pm

       Except that is what they want. The NLRA makes unions the sole bargaining unit if can certify 50+1 in an election. They would refuse to negotiate till the union was decertified because they fell below that threshold.

       LikeLike

     • bethree5 says:

       June 24, 2018 at 6:41 pm

       I was going to say the same thing: If SCOTUS rules in favor of Janus, wouldn’t the next step be a suit by unions challenging a labor law that requires them to perform agency services for free? Let’s say you have union with 75% dues-paying members — still considerable leverage. If it negotiates an improved contract, the non-union members should, by rights, be left under the old contract, since they contributed nothing toward the costs of negotiating the new one.

       Joel this dense old head can’t understand your reply to this point. The union would refuse to negotiate [w/o agency fees] – why? Please spell out.

       LikeLike

     • LeftCoastTeacher says:

       June 24, 2018 at 7:31 pm

       Surely what happens already in Right to Work for less states is what would happen everywhere else. The union probably would just have less money to pay for the work of negotiating contracts (and defending unsatisfactory evaluations and charges of misconduct). Then, if an agreement were reached, it still would have to be voted on. Since arbitration after a no vote would be weakened by less union money, districts would be able to hold out for lower salaries and benefits in negotiations. The situation would deteriorate until wildcat strikes became the only option.

       If districts were free to pay nonunion employees differently than union employees, it would be even worse. I assume they would pay nonunion freeloaders more instead of less, enticing teachers, especially new teachers, to stay out of the unions for the short term financial incentive. They would be free to bribe employees out of paying unions to negotiate for a better long term future on their behalf. Eventually, TFA temps would get the highest salaries by my theory. No more pensions.

       Greatly appreciated is the sentiment, that freeloaders shouldn’t freeload. That is true. And yet, there is always a yet. If Janus wins, there will be no good way to protect union dues. There will need to be strikes and lots of them.

       LikeLike

     • bethree5 says:

       June 25, 2018 at 12:37 am

       LFT: : “If districts were free to pay nonunion employees differently than union employees, it would be even worse. I assume they would pay nonunion freeloaders more instead of less”
       Why do you assume that? Look at the numbers posted re: Camden NJ : 200k dues-paying members vs 3k paying only agency fees. Even if districts paid the 3k “more” [out of what budget?– would they?], how would that change the union’s leverage?

       LikeLike

     • LeftCoastTeacher says:

       June 25, 2018 at 9:07 am

       LikeLike

     • Joel Herman (@jwherman11) says:

       June 25, 2018 at 10:54 pm

       bethree5

       A full discussion

       http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/21168/janus_unions_exclusive_representation_labor_right_to_work_supreme_court

       .

       LikeLike

3. LeftCoastTeacher says:

   June 24, 2018 at 1:15 pm

   So if they deny the ability of unions to charge agency fees for services provided, they will also have to deny the ability of businesses to charge fees for services provided. Banking and investing for free! Legal representation for free! Free internet service!

   The terribly weak but impassioned argument for Janus made by the conservative Supreme Court justices (that’s right, emotional arguing by justices, not lawyers) is that agency fees are used for political campaigning, which is just plain false. Agency fees are for collective bargaining, and negotiating contracts is not political activity. Political action donations are collected separately. The conservative justices are creating another “corporations are people” level distortion of fact and reason in order to help fringe libertarian billionaires destroy democracy.

   I still believe they could come to their senses and not make this a right to work for less country. Justice Gorsuch might have listened to the defense. They are acquainted. Chief Justice Roberts seems capable of changing his mind. Society as we know it stands a small chance. I hold my breath.

   LikeLike

   Reply
   • retired teacher says:

     June 24, 2018 at 1:25 pm

     ALEC which enjoys tax free status can get away with not being considered political? We need some better attorneys on the left.

     LikeLike

     Reply
     • dianeravitch says:

       June 24, 2018 at 2:08 pm

       The IRS under Obama should have taken away ALEC’s charitable status. It is about as “charitable” as the two political parties, which do not have tax exempt status.

       LikeLike

4. Nicolle Icart says:

   June 24, 2018 at 2:43 pm

   Why ? Why at a time when our country is in such transition do we have to unplug a support system in education. What can teachers do now to make our unions stronger?

   LikeLike

   Reply
5. FLERP! says:

   June 24, 2018 at 3:07 pm

   Relatedly, for the last few months, there have been reports speculating that Justice Kennedy will retire this summer. Take this second-hand account at whatever discount you think appropriate, but according to a colleague of mine who is close to another SCOTUS Justice, Justice Kennedy will in fact retire this summer. There’s been a ton of analysis of this November’s elections, but I haven’t seen much if any analysis focusing on the role an open (or newly filled) SCOTUS seat might play in the elections.

   LikeLike

   Reply
   • dianeravitch says:

     June 24, 2018 at 8:25 pm

     The Republicans are likely to retain control of the Senate and they will approve any person chosen by Trump.

     LikeLike

     Reply
     • FLERP! says:

       June 24, 2018 at 8:28 pm

       I think the question is how much will an open Supreme Court seat motivate the Trump base to vote this fall. Of course the seat may be filled by then already. But the spectacle of a knockdown battle on a SCOTUS nominee may shift part of the narrative away from issues that Republicans are less unified and energized about.

       LikeLike

6. Lloyd Lofthouse says:

   June 24, 2018 at 3:39 pm

   Less than 2,000 people have watched this video on YouTube and I don’t see links to share it through Facebook. Google+, Twitter, and LinkedIn. The only way to share this video is to embed it in a post on our blogs.

   LikeLike

   Reply
   • bethree5 says:

     June 24, 2018 at 7:02 pm

     Right you are! Done on FB FWIW – hope those w/bigger audience will follow suit.

     LikeLike

     Reply
7. Wait, What? says:

   June 24, 2018 at 4:06 pm

   The gop, the disenfranchised who love a president who screams and yells (knowing he’ll sell them out, too), the white supremecists, the evangelicals, the billionaires, the Hillary haters… do not care about Russia (heck, Putin kept Hillary out of office), do not care about jobs, do not care about vouchers, unions, trade wars, ISIS, the freaking wall, health care, the military, or even being Obama-haters… those things just get them all goose stepping and salivating all the way to the bank.

   They care about abortion, guns, and deregulation (of everything).

   And, they will sell their souls for a seat on the Surpreme Court.

   They spew hypocrisy from the pulpit every Sunday morning
   They look their daughters in the eye and rationalize the president’s locker room talk

   The dark money and private country club white boys, pacs, billionaires, koch boys, nra … will spend multi-millions on November Senate races and just wait out Kennedy and Ginsburg. And, they will use every tactic in the book to keep anyone who doesn’t look like them from voting.

   35 Senate seats! Every teacher, union, public employee… must work to make voting accessible and must vote.

   LikeLike

   Reply
   • retired teacher says:

     June 24, 2018 at 4:19 pm

     Bill Maher mentioned that the Koch Brothers, Waltons and Bloomberg are donating many millions to the next election. He said the Democratic billionaires Gates, Zukerberg and Bezos give a couple of hundred thousand each. He called them “cheap bstrds.” Frankly, I think the reason they aren’t big donors is they are beneficiaries of the conservative agenda. They win either way.

     LikeLike

     Reply
     • Lloyd Lofthouse says:

       June 24, 2018 at 5:45 pm

       Michael Bloomberg Will Spend $80 Million on the Midterms. His Goal: Flip the House for the Democrats.

       Bloomberg isn’t spending his $80 million on the GOP. Bloomberg despises Trump as much as most of the readers of this Blog.

       LikeLike

     • retired teacher says:

       June 24, 2018 at 5:53 pm

       I hope he gives to all Democrats, not just the corporate ones.

       LikeLike

     • Lloyd Lofthouse says:

       June 24, 2018 at 5:57 pm

       I wonder how many Democrats do not get any campaign money from corporations or billionaires. I suspect they would be a rare breed.

       LikeLike

     • LeftCoastTeacher says:

       June 24, 2018 at 7:39 pm

       The Democratic donor class gives money to neoliberals, not progressives. Bloomberg threatened to run himself as an independent if Bernie was the Democratic nominee in 2016. Progressive candidates win with grassroots support.

       LikeLike

     • LeftCoastTeacher says:

       June 24, 2018 at 7:45 pm

       …And interesting that Bloomberg would not have run as an independent if an “establishment” Republican had been the GOP nominee. Republican or Democrat doesn’t matter to the billionaires. “We are not a collection of red states and blue states,” we are a collection of citizens united and everyone else.

       LikeLike

     • LeftCoastTeacher says:

       June 24, 2018 at 8:35 pm

       Quote of the day: “I cannot call riches better than the baggage of virtue. The Roman word is better, impedimenta.” Francis Bacon

       LikeLike

     • dianeravitch says:

       June 25, 2018 at 9:22 am

       LCT, you are making good use of the 5-foot shelf.

       LikeLike

     • LeftCoastTeacher says:

       June 25, 2018 at 12:25 pm

       I find reading it even more enjoyable than I thought I would.

       LikeLike

8. Heidi Van De Wege says:

   June 24, 2018 at 4:07 pm

   What would this mean for tenure?

   LikeLike

   Reply
   • Abigail Shure says:

     June 24, 2018 at 5:26 pm

     Tenure is an endangered species. Many states already have laws on the books to circumvent it.

     LikeLike

     Reply
   • Michael P Dominguez says:

     June 24, 2018 at 7:49 pm

     Good question. In California teachers have to defend our tenure in a quasi-court situation. Most of California affiliates of NEA and AFT have group legal insurance for this purpose EXCEPT for United Teachers Los Angeles which finally put it in place in 2016. So here teachers are at will if you don’t have a union no matter what the law and the collective bargaining agreement say. In other words teachers have the right to permanent status (tenure) if you have the money and support to defend it.

     LikeLike

     Reply
     • M says:

       June 25, 2018 at 7:07 am

       This is definitely part of the strategy – tenure effectively doesn’t exist if no one can afford to defend it.

       LikeLike

9. m4potw says:

   June 25, 2018 at 12:53 am

   IMHO, all union workers should unite to agree on that they receive whatever in benefits and wages increase and DO NOT CARE other NON- UNION workers at the mercy of the owner.

   Eventually, the magic of GREED from owner will show! Yes, we will NOT see those non-union workers would receive any extra benefit or wages increase in the long term. C’est la vie! Back2basic

   LikeLike

   Reply
10. Chiara says:

    June 25, 2018 at 7:44 am

    Ed reform lobbyists are absolutely breathless with excitement at the thought of eradicating teachers unions- they (and all of their billionaire funded news outlets) have been promoting the decision for a year.

    Once labor unions are gone there won’t be any dissent or debate on their policies at all- it will be 100% cheerleading for privatization- and that’s what they want.

    The echo chamber will get narrower and narrower – more so than it already is- and we’ll literally only hear from the same 150 “experts”, all paid by the privatization movement or employed by the charter sector.

    LikeLike

    Reply
11. Chiara says:

    June 25, 2018 at 7:52 am

    Here’s The 74- breathlessly anticipating their (successful) attack on labor unions, and cheering the justices on:

    #Janus left for last, closely watched #SCOTUS decision on mandatory union dues for public workers could finally arrive Monday 10 a.m.

    They’ll be popping champagne corks in DC- finally- the organized opposition is eradicated! Now they won’t have to debate or defend anything they do! They’ll be able to jam their lousy, gimmicky policy through with no debate at all!

    HUGE win for ed reform. It’s their biggest accomplishment in the last decade.

    Another loss for public school families, who will now have NO effective advocates in government.

    LikeLike

    Reply
12. Chiara says:

    June 25, 2018 at 8:22 am

    Once labor unions are eradicated the sun will break thru the clouds and all US public schools will be (properly) privatized, and awesome. Poverty will be cured! Inequality will end!

    No labor unions and a voucher for every student. Viola! All problems solved.

    No wonder this ideology is so popular. It makes absolutely no demands on anyone except front line workers.

    LikeLike

    Reply
    • M says:

      June 25, 2018 at 8:40 am

      expect more those who want to loot the government piggy bank to properly cash in and reward their local politicians (from taxpayer funding – nice little legal conflict of interest there)

      LikeLike

      Reply
13. FLERP! says:

    June 25, 2018 at 10:12 am

    Scotusblog is live-blogging the Court’s announcements of decisions this morning.

    http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/live-blog-of-orders-and-opinions-with-john-elwood-and-first-mondays/

    LikeLike

    Reply
    • FLERP! says:

      June 25, 2018 at 10:40 am

      No Janus decision today.

      LikeLike

      Reply
      • dianeravitch says:

        June 25, 2018 at 12:12 pm

        There is always next week. Saving the worst for last, when the justices are away on vacation.

        LikeLike

      • FLERP! says:

        June 25, 2018 at 12:15 pm

        There’ll be more tomorrow, and possibly Wednesday.

        LikeLike

      • LeftCoastTeacher says:

        June 25, 2018 at 8:54 pm

        There was speculation on scotusblog that Alito already wrote the majority decision — two years ago. Scary stuff. After this week, the Court adjourns for a while, from what I gather. Doesn’t look good, no matter the timing. The SCOTUS will lose more credibility with a pro-Janus decision, adding to the Citizens United problem.

        LikeLike