This case, which overrules decades of precedent, was about stripping unions of resources, with the ultimate aim of eradicating labor unions altogether.
Well, no. It was about an individual’s personal freedom. Read the decision.
Note: Personal freedoms are established and defended in the Constitution. Groups of persons…..not nearly as much so.
Why was this such a prized goal for these right-wing groups? Because unions help level the imbalance between the rich and powerful and everyone else, and help working people get ahead.
Or……it was a prized goal for right wing groups because unions had become an aggregator for campaign funds to Democratic politicians. The Republicans have no comparable institutional aggregators, in that corporations, which usually lean right, are smart enough to donate to both sides, substantially, realizing that they don’t want to make enemies when the “other guys” win the election. Thus, to the GOP, the decision fixed an imbalance in the donations playing field.
Justice Elena Kagan dismissed the majority’s opinion as “weaponizing the First Amendment,”
Yes. A frightening bit of demogogery, that, considering the source. Imagine, suggesting that in order to earn a living, an individual must pay money they know goes to advocate ideas they consider noxious.
With this reversal, public employees who benefit from a collective bargaining agreement but choose not to join the union can opt to be “free riders” and not contribute anything for the benefits they receive, while the union must still represent them.
Two reasons why unions did this to themselves:
- They decided to be all in for one party, but not the other. There is nothing in conservative governance philosophy that is hostile to workers unionizing. However, with union donations going 100% to one party, they made themselves the enemy of the other.
- If the unions had, previously to the decision, decided to end the practice of donating to parties and politicians, Janus would not have sued.
…people are sticking with the union.
I support whatever they decide. As long as they have CHOICE.
The public gets it, too. Even in our hugely polarized country, polling shows that people support teachers unions and agree that teachers aren’t paid enough.
I don’t think there’s ever been a poll where the public didn’t want to pay teachers more. The friction happens when the district tries to raise property taxes to make it happen.
Indeed, the right wing of the Supreme Court is going well beyond its charge to interpret the Constitution. With the reliably conservative vote of the newest justice, Neil Gorsuch, the Supreme Court is transforming from an impartial protector of constitutional liberties and minority rights to an activist, partisan champion of the powerful and the political right — which is exactly how a web of right-wing, dark-money groups planned it.
Interesting conspiracy theory. I don’t share it.
The Court has started to neatly divide into two predictable wings: One, that decides cases by existing law and lets the chips fall where they may, and the other, which considers the repercussions of deciding a case by existing law, and, if they dislike the outcome of doing so, finds ways to “rationalize” their way around existing law, generally through tortured logic (such as using the term “weaponized” in conjunction with the 1st Amendment.)
Put another way, the “fix” for the Janus decision is to do the hard work of persuading a majority of legislators that a law must be passed to restore mandatory unionization. As Justice Roberts scolded the right when he declared for the ACA, (paraphrase) “Don’t look to the Courts to bail you out on what you can’t get done at the ballot box.”
Good advice there, for both parties. Too much reliance on the Courts.
The day of the Janus decision, AFT nurses in Ohio won a contract that created safe staffing levels, and 2,400 faculty in Oregon voted to join the AFT. Union members will continue to care, fight, show up and vote — to achieve together what individuals cannot do alone. Don’t count us out.
Really, all you need to do to remain relevant is to increase the value your members perceive they are getting from their memberships. And make sure your dues aren’t perceived as being too high.
People don’t mind paying for something as long as they think they’re getting value for their dollars. It’s only when the rank-and-file starts to think they are NOT getting good bang for their bucks then you need to beg the government for forced membership.