Connect with us

News

Janus Right To Work Supreme Court Decision is Under Threat

Published

on

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.”

Trending: Judge Amy Coney Barrett Recently Approved Democrat COVID-19 Lockdown Policies

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.”

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

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.

News

Rival Candidate Spreads Fake News Attacks Against Anti-Lockdown Hero Shelley Luther

Published

on

Shelley Luther, the candidate for Texas’ Senate District 30, is beginning to face heat from her rivals in the Senate seat’s special election.

One of her opponents, Drew Springer, the State Representative for Texas’s 68th District, called her out for supposed hypocrisy on the Wuhan virus lockdowns.

On Facebook he commented, “Shelley Luther sang a different tune about forced COVID-19 shutdowns before she realized she could use it for her political benefit.

While she thought her record could be deleted from Facebook, there was only so long she could hide. #ShutdownShelley

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Springer referred to a comment Luther made on March 16 where she said “Just my opinion. If some major cities are closing down building where large gatherings occur, then EVERY city should. The problem will not fix if some people are out and about.”

However, several users commenting on Springer’s Facebook post were quick to point out some nuances in Luther’s comments.

The main gist of their comments was that Luther said that it didn’t make any sense for a few venues to remain open and others not be closed.  In essence, she was calling for policy consistency, not for selective enforcement of lockdowns.

Luther made a name for herself earlier this year when she resisted the city of Dallas’ shutdown order and continued operating her business in defiance of this ordinance.

She would later face jail time for her refusal to comply but would later be pardoned by Texas Governor Greg Abbott.

Luther has received endorsements from organizations such as Texas Gun Rights PAC for her staunch liberty activism and commitment to American principles such as the Second Amendment.

The Dallas salon owner is one of the more high-profile state level candidates running for office and has become a national figure of resistance against the Wuhan virus lockdowns.

A Luther victory would represent a major win for Texas conservatives who have been disappointed with the legislative body’s performance over the years.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending