Protect Workers Against Union-Government Collusion

Illinois law mandates that non-union public-sector workers like Mark Janus pay money for union collective-bargaining activities that they do not support. Collective bargaining in the public-sector often involves advocacy of quintessentially political questions, such as the amount of public worker wages, pensions, and other benefits that will be paid for with the public ’s tax money. Thus, these government-compelled exactions—“agency fees”—give these workers a Hobson’s choice: Either sacrifice your First Amendment rights and fund political advocacy you may not like, or find other employment.The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of these fees inAbood v. Detroit Board of Education(1977), but has since questionedAbood’s reasoning inKnox v. SEIU(2012) andHarris v. Quinn (2014). Two terms ago, the Court inFriedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2016) seemed primed to overruleAbood, but the untimely passing of Justice Antonin Scalia left the Court to split 4-4 on the question. This case deals with the same question that was presented inFriedrichs: ShouldAboodbe overruled and public-sector agency-fee arrangements be declared unconstitutional? Following theAbood precedent, a federal district court understandably dismissed Janus ’s case, which ruling the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit quickly upheld. Cato and the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center are nowsupporting Janus in petitioning the Supreme Court...

Source: Cato-at-liberty - July 10, 2017 Category: American Health Authors: Ilya Shapiro, Frank Garrison Source Type: blogs