On September 28, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States announced that it will grant certiorari in a case that will test the constitutionality of requiring mandatory payment of "fair share" union dues to be paid by non-member, non-consenting public sector workers. As such, non-members receive the same higher wages (one study found that workers in unionized shops enjoy a wage premium of almost 12 percent) and benefits enjoyed by their coworkers who belong to the union.
Conservatives across America who now are being forced to pay dues to their employer's unions to fund the left-leaning activities of their organized labor leaders - even speech with which they decidedly disagree - are getting another chance to escape that burden. "But just because I care about kids doesn't mean I also want to support a government union", Janus said in a letter published online.
Republican Rauner says employees "should not be forced to give up a portion of their pay each month to fund public-sector union activity". But in the public sector, unions donate huge sums to supportive politicians and then "negotiate" with employers run by those very politicians as taxpayers foot the bill.
A date for the court to hear oral arguments in the case hasn't yet been set.More news: Oil prices rally after OPEC meeting
Organized labor has expressed concern that a ruling throwing out the fees would give employees less incentive to join public-sector unions because they would still be represented by the union in collecting bargaining and receive the benefits from that without having to pay for it. Now that President Donald Trump has put Justice Neil Gorsuch on the bench, he is nearly certain to provide that fifth vote to deal the death blow to public sector unions, setting American back four decades.
"Janus and millions of public employees are subject to agency fee requirements that compel them to subsidize the speech of a third party (an exclusive representative) that they may not wish to support", the appeal says. Currently, public-sector unions in 22 states are permitted to collect fees from workers who aren't members. Those who disagree can get a rebate on the "political" part of their union dues but must pay the part of dues that go toward collective bargaining and the like, sometimes called agency fees or fair-share fees.
The Illinois case will be one of the most important that the nine justices will decide during their new term that begins on Monday and runs through next June.
The plaintiffs objected to paying the fees, arguing that collective bargaining is "quintessentially political", and that the unions express views that not all employees agree with. "Rauner ..." "to use the highest court in the land to further rig the economic rules against everyday working people". About 10 percent of its 43,000 eligible workers sought the rebate past year. In 2016, the Supreme Court threw out a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which had concluded that "service advisors" at auto dealerships were not covered by an exemption in the Fair Labor Standards Act from overtime for "any salesman" "primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles".
Leftists are selectively enthusiastic about stare decisis-it is wonderful when they are trying to avoid reversal of the ill-advised Abood, not so wonderful when they are arguing for a brand-new constitutional right to, for example, gay marriage. "The merits of the case, and 40 years of Supreme Court precedent and sound law, are on our side".