The man challenging the power of public-sector labor unions, a major case that the Supreme Court will take up Monday, scoffs at critics who accuse him of trying to get a “free ride” from unions.
It’s the opposite, says Mark Janus, the plaintiff in Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. And that’s why he is fighting to end public-sector unions’ power to force mandatory fees from government workers like him.
“People talk about the ‘free rider.’ Well, from my perspective, the union is the freeloader here because they’re the ones getting away without doing anything,” he told the Washington Examiner. He doesn’t think the union is making things any better for him, so why should he have to pay?
“It’s not about the money for me. It’s about my rights. My right to say ‘no’ is at least as important as my right to say ‘yes,’” he said.
Janus, a soft-spoken record-keeper for the Illinois Department of Public Health, sued his workplace’s union over a $50 fee it receives that automatically gets deducted from his paycheck every month although he never joined the union. Janus argues that violates his First Amendment rights.
The seemingly minor financial dispute is among the most significant cases the justices will hear this session. Janus’ case could overturn a 1977 precedent called Abood v. Detroit Board of Education that says public-sector union contracts can force workers such as Janus to pay the unions or lose their jobs. Organized labor is trembling at the prospect of losing that power.
Just less than half of the nation’s 15 million union members work in the public sector. The automatic payments their unions receive – dubbed “agency fees” — are believed to be crucial to their finances. A victory for Janus, in short, could be a crippling economic blow to the entire labor movement.
The AFL-CIO, the nation’s largest labor federation, has called Janus “a case that would rig the system even more against working people by taking away their freedom to have strong unions.” It is planning nationwide rallies against the case Saturday.
Labor leaders such as Unite Here President D. Taylor have little patience for people such as Janus. They argue that because unions are usually legally obligated to represent all workers in a workplace, it is only right that the unions be able to charge those workers fees for collective bargaining on their behalf.
“When did we become a nation of freeloaders? I think of them as what the GOP used to call welfare recipients: Welfare queens,” he told the Washington Examiner.
Janus’ response to such criticism is simple: “It’s the principle. Nobody asked me.”
He never wanted to be in the union, never signed a card to do so, and never voted in a workplace election. The union was already there when he took his job more than a decade ago, which automatically resulted in a paycheck deduction for him. “I can’t go to payroll and say ‘I don’t want to pay.’ They’d laugh at me.”
Janus doesn’t have to pay full union dues, but the agency fee the union charges for him is 80 percent of the regular dues. That translates to $600 out of his pocket every year. And he doesn’t see what the fees get him. Asked if he can think of any positive impact to his job from the union, Janus replied, “Not really, no.”
He says he has received little negative reaction from coworkers, and many people have quietly thanked him for bringing the case. “I’m not doing this just for myself. This is for the other people who feel the same as I do. … I’ve had a lot people come up to me and thank me for taking up this case.”
Union leaders fear that may be true. An internal survey by AFSCME, which has 1.6 million members, found that only a third of them would voluntarily pay dues, and half of its membership couldn’t be counted upon to do that, according to a 2015 Bloomberg report. A nontrivial minority of 15 percent would be certain to opt out of paying dues entirely.
Ben Johnson, former head of United Professions AFT Vermont, the American Federation of Teachers’ state umbrella group, says public-sector unions became so used to the automatic fees that many lost touch with members. “We did a lot of surveys of why people didn’t join the union [as full members]. The number one response we got back was, ‘No one asked us.’ They just got a job and were automatically part of the union paying agency fees, and that was it,” Johnson said. The unions stopped being focused on members.
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the Liberty Justice Center, both of which have long defended workers who oppose their unions, are representing Janus in Monday’s oral arguments.
Last year, the court appeared to be on the verge of overturning Abood in a case called Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, but the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia resulted in a 4-4 deadlock, leaving the issue unresolved.
Janus’ case is, legally speaking, a virtual copy of Friedrichs, so newly-appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch is the main unknown factor. Gorsuch is a conservative and thus is widely expected to tip the balance in Janus’ favor.
Janus was present at the Supreme Court last year for the oral arguments in Friedrichs. He said he was hopeful that the court could resolve the issue in that case, making his case moot and letting him get back to his regular life.
“After the court deadlocked, it was like, ‘Oh, I guess I’m on deck,” he said.
