If this sounds familiar, it is largely the same arguments made in Friedrichs v. Janus is arguing that bargaining activity is political as well, and he should be able to opt out of paying any fees to the union. Employees can currently only opt out of the fees that would go toward a union’s political activities. Unions argue that everyone who benefits from union representation should share fairly in the cost. In California and much of the country, public employees are required to pay their “fair share” of union dues regardless of whether they choose to join the union - these fees are used for the union’s collective bargaining activities. Janus argues that compelling employees to pay their compulsory “fair share” of union dues is a violation of their First Amendment rights. AFSCME, was brought by an employee of the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, Mark Janus, with the backing of the National Right to Work Legal Foundation. Supreme Court heard oral argument in a case that could significantly impact the power of public employee unions, including the California Teachers Association, California Federation of Teachers and the California School Employees Association.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |