By Greg Bishop/Illinois Radio Network
SPRINGFIELD – An Illinois state worker’s fight against forced union dues is heading to the U.S. Supreme Court in a case that could change labor law across the country.
In a decision announced Thursday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in Janus vs. AFSCME, which challenges a 40-year-old precedent that allowed state and local governments to require their employees to pay a portion of their salaries to a union whether they want to or not. Plaintiff Mark Janus said he doesn’t support the union’s politics “such as electing candidates and slamming this candidate versus that candidate or that public office holder over another public office holder.”
Critics of the case say people like Janus are free loaders. Janus said it’s about the First Amendment.
“Because of the free speech and free association,” Janus said. “I’m forced to associate with a union that doesn’t’ agree with what I agree with. … This is a First Amendment, freedom of speech, freedom of association, and that’s all I’m really looking for. I don’t want to have someone come in and mandate me to say you have to pay for this you have to join this organization.”
Gov. Bruce Rauner, who pushed for such a case early in his administration, said this is about fairness.
“Everybody who wants to join a union should, but anybody who doesn’t want to and doesn’t want their speech controlled by a union, shouldn’t have to,” Rauner said. “That’s what the debate is about and it’s a very important case.”
State Sen. Andy Manar, D-Bunker Hill, commenting before the court’s Thursday decision to take the case, said it’s part of an ulterior motive.
“I think that’s just a continuing effort right now across the country to go after collective bargaining rights in many cases,” Manar said. “That’s going to continue. This is just the latest.”
Janus said that argument doesn’t hold water because if his case prevails, people will still be able to join a union to collectively bargain, workers just wouldn’t be forced to.
“It’s not an effort to diminish wages,” Janus said. “It’s not an effort to diminish collective bargaining. Collective bargaining is not going to go away. What’s going to happen is you’re just going to have free association for those of us that don’t want to association with the union because of what they do and what they stand for.”
Janus prevails, public sector unions across the country would have to compete for members, instead of forcing workers to pay so-called fair share. Janus said that will require the union to be focused.
He said if he is successful it should get the unions to focus on what’s important, like safety, charity, or expanding on community service, instead of dealing in politics.
“Hopefully this will cause people to think differently.” Janus said.
Oral arguments in the case are expected sometime early next year.
