Janus v. AFSCME Q&A

(This article first appeared in the May-June 2018 issue of The American Postal Worker magazine) 

During the last few months, there has been a lot of discussion in the news about the Janus Supreme Court case and how it will affect public employees, all workers and the labor movement as a whole.

Q: What is the Janus case about?

A: The Janus lawsuit against AFSCME claims that “fair share” fees are a violation of an individual’s “free speech” rights. The case is really not about free speech at all, but rather a blatant effort to weaken unions.

Q: What are fair share fees?

A: Fair share fees, in the states in which they are legally negotiated, compel non-members to, at minimum, pay their “fair share” of the costs incurred by the union and dues-paying members for bargaining union contracts and for representing the workforce. All workers benefit from the union. Everyone should pay their fair share.

Q: Do union contracts covering postal workers allow fair share fees?

A: No. The current federal law forbids the APWU and other postal unions from negotiating fair share fees. Every dues-paying member knows it is blatantly unfair for non-members to enjoy the benefits of unionization without paying for it. However, based on a 40-year-old Supreme Court ruling (Abood v. Detroit Board of Education), unions representing state and local public-sector workers, from city employees to teachers, have been permitted to negotiate fair share fees in many states.

Q: Are fair share fees an infringement on free speech?

A: Absolutely not. Fair share fees are simply fair. Any union member, or non-member, has full free speech rights to speak their minds and share their views. Union dues are not, and cannot be, used to directly support any candidates of any political party.

Q: How did this case get so far?

A: First, over past decades, the Supreme Court has increasingly become pro-big business and as a result, less friendly to workers. Second, this case is not propelled by a disgruntled worker, but pushed and funded by corporate billionaires whose aim is to use the courts to “defund and defang” unions and further rig the system against working people.

Q: Do we know how the Supreme Court will rule?

A: There is little question that the majority of the Supreme Court is pro-big business and will rule to protect their corporate friends at the expense of workers.

Q: What will be the impact of such a ruling?

A: In the short run, public-sector unions may be weakened. The collective bargaining agreements, pay and benefits of workers will suffer. Benefits that public-sector unions are able to negotiate for the entire community – such as student-teacher ratios, public services and public safety – will diminish.

However, in the long run, a ruling in favor of Janus will not be the death of the labor movement. Unions can rebuild on a stronger foundation. The APWU and other postal unions prove workers can be well-organized and wage successful fights without fair share fees. Workers will readily join unions as a collective path to a better life. The West Virginia and Oklahoma teachers and education workers have shown that fair share fees have little to do with whether workers can succeed and win.

Q: Since the APWU cannot negotiate fair share fees, what does this case matter to postal workers?

A: An injury to one, is an injury to all. Wherever unions are strong, it strengthens postal workers. Wherever workers win good contracts, it helps the APWU win good contracts. Wherever wages rise, the entire community rises. Any blow that weakens unions, weakens all of us.