Janus v. AFSCME, a landmark Supreme Court decision in 2018 which determined that government employees cannot be compelled to pay union dues as a condition of employment, could be potentially be at risk according to a plaintiff and an attorney from the case.
Mark Janus, the plaintiff in Janus v. AFSCME, and Bill Messenger, a staff attorney at the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, expressed some of their concerns about the durability of Janus.
Janus said, “I think at some point, yes, it may get back to the court for clarification purposes. That has yet to be seen. It may take another 2-3 years.”
Bill Messenger commented on potential scenarios for future challenges of Janus:
“There are probably over 40 cases right now going on this issue and we would hope at the end of the day the appellate courts interpret Janus correctly and hold the first amendment waiver as required. If they do, Supreme Court review isn’t required. However, if the circuit courts misinterpret Janus to not require a first amendment waiver, then ultimately the high court may have to make clear that it meant what it said in Janus.”
Eight months after the Janus decision, 48,598 California government employees stopped paying union dues based on information from a California Public Records request. These numbers are likely increasing as we speak.
The Janus v. AFSCME decision of 2018 overturned the 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education.
Under the Abood case, the Epoch Times notes the following points:
“Every employee represented by a union, even if that employee was not a union member, must pay to the union, as a condition of employment, a service charge equal in amount to union dues. This was valid insofar as the service charges were used to finance expenditures by the union for collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment purposes.”
However, a more conservative Supreme court in 2018 struck down the Abood case with its Janus decision. It established the following points:
No public-sector employee, having refused membership in a trade union, may be compelled to pay union dues to said union because of the benefits he may receive from their collective bargaining. “Fair share” agreements, when applied to public sector workers, violate the First Amendment protections of free association and freedom of speech.
This was one of the biggest blows against organized labor, now that public sector workers can opt out of government unions.
Right to work is one of the most successful conservative policy movements in the nation.
Bill Messenger broke down the significance of the Janus decision:
“Right to work is a very simple concept. It’s that each individual employee has the right to choose whether or not to support a union and that’s really it. If an employee wants to pay union dues, that’s their choice, but if an employee doesn’t want to pay union dues toward a union, that is also their choice. The contrary to the right to work principle is the forced unionism idea, that all employees should be forced to support a union whether they want to or not. Right to work stands in contrast to that and say ‘no, each worker should choose.’ So ultimately it’s about worker freedom.”
Before the Janus decision, 27 states and Guam had right to work laws on the books that gave workers the ability to opt out of union dues.
Right to work protects the freedom of association, a fundamental bedrock of a free society.
Knowing the Left and its relentless nature, they will find ways to prevent the Janus decision from fully being implemented. Ultimately, their endgame would be to overturn Janus.
Freedom fighters would be wise to remain vigilant in the next few years.
Democrats Introduce Expanded Background Check Legislation
Democrats are going to implement a background check which targets “extremism.”
Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy and California Congressman Mike Thompson brought forward legislation on March 2, 2021 that aims to broaden the federal background check system on firearms sales, according to a report by The Hill.
Under The Background Check Expansion Act, gun sales and purchases between all unlicensed sellers and buyers would be subject to a mandatory background check. The background checks would not be applicable for law enforcement officers, lending out firearms for the purpose of hunting, temporary transfers for self-defense, or family members gifting a firearm.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and 43 Senate Democrats have co-sponsored this bill. Thompson, who is the chair of the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, reintroduced this legislation in the U.S. House
“For years, the bipartisan House-passed background checks bill languished in the Senate under Republican Leader Mitch McConnell. Now, with Senate Democrats in the Majority, we have the opportunity to act on this overwhelmingly popular, lifesaving legislation to protect American communities,” Schumer declared in a press release.
According to a CBS News report, President Joe Biden has repeatedly called on Congress to pass stiffer gun control laws. This gun control bill will not pass so easily given how it will need 10 Republican senators to vote in favor of it.
Against the backdrop of the January 6 storming of the Capitol, such a background check will likely feature provisions that target so-called “extremists.” The ruling class has routinely lumped average gun owners with domestic extremists and will most certainly use recent events to justify encroachments on people’s right to bear arms.
Biden is a veteran of the gun control movement, as evidenced by his sponsorship of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. With Democrats in control of all branches of the federal government, they will certainly move to pass gun control. However, their success is not guaranteed due to moderate Democrats like Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema and West Virginia Joe Manchin not being completely receptive to radical gun control that could alienate them from their more right-wing constituents.
Nevertheless, the Left has shown that it’s willing to act regardless of the political context. Keeping this in mind, gun owners must be ready to beat back any kind of gun control coming from D.C. Such fights will allow the Right to rebuild its forces and make a splash in the 2022 midterms and the 2024 presidential race.
Congress1 day ago
REJECTED: Marjorie Taylor Greene Stops Cori Bush’s Amendment to Allow Violent Convicted Felons to Vote
Tech3 days ago
Gab Attacked in Coordinated Hacking Attempt, Timed to Coincide with CPAC
ANTIFA3 days ago
Portland ANTIFA Riots Continue in Biden’s Presidency as Thugs Terrorize Businesses, Citizens in Leftist Pogrom
Congress4 days ago
Arizona’s Paul Gosar Proposes Amending Coronavirus Package to Replace Pork with $10,000 Stimulus Checks
Deplorables3 days ago
Rep. Paul Gosar, Steve King, and Michelle Malkin Among Speakers at America First Political Action Conference
Politics3 days ago
President Trump Confirms Support of Republican Party, Slams Biden’s Open Borders in Wide-Ranging CPAC Speech
The Swamp4 days ago
Second Former Andrew Cuomo Aide Accuses Disgraced Governor of Sexual Harassment
Snowflakes2 days ago
Stanford University Babies Demand “Removal” of College Republicans from Campus