Battle Born Progress | SCOTUS weakens unions by striking down Fair Share union fees
16634
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-16634,single-format-standard,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,qode-title-hidden,qode-child-theme-ver-1.0.0,qode-theme-ver-13.7,qode-theme-bridge,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-5.4.5,vc_responsive

SCOTUS weakens unions by striking down Fair Share union fees

NEVADA – Today, the U.S. Supreme Court released its decision in Janus v. AFSCME. In a 5-4 decision, the Court sided with Mark Janus, a public employee who sued his representative union over the requirement to pay a “fair share fee” for the services he received from his union.

Will Pregman, Lead Organizer with the Nevadans for Judicial Progress Coalition said, Nevada’s working families should read today’s decision as a giant flashing neon light signaling that corporate interests have hijacked the federal courts to undermine their rights. It is vital to remember that the swing vote in today’s decision, Neil Gorsuch, was nominated and confirmed to a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court after Senate Republican leadership refused to even hold a hearing for President Obama’s moderate nominee for the Supreme Court.

This decision will drain essential resources from public sector unions and make it harder to negotiate fair contracts for their members. And that is exactly what conservative dark money interests wanted when they spent $18 million to put Neil Gorsuch on the bench. Unions must recommit to organizing their members in order to fight back against the wealthy interests who funded this case’s journey to the Supreme Court, as well as secure a more just economic future for working families”.

About this case:

Janus v. AFSCME Council 31 concerned the constitutionality of fair share fees for union non-members. Typically, unions deduct dues from it’s members’ paychecks in order to cover the costs of negotiating and enforcing their collective bargaining agreement. Non-members are sometimes charged an agency fee or fair share fee to offset the cost of negotiating benefits for those who are not dues-paying members. Unions are generally required to represent members under the Taft-Hartley Act. Janus bears significant resemblance to Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association in 2016, in which SCOTUS ruled 4-4 following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.