麻豆精品

Home health aides paid by the state of Illinois last week filed a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that they should receive back dues they were required to pay to a union they didn鈥檛 consent to join.

That case,聽, is one of several dozen pending lawsuits that seek to further refine the relationship between public-sector employees, unions, and governments since the Supreme Court聽. The latest and most impactful of those rulings, Janus v. AFSCME, which ended mandatory dues payments by public-sector employees, was聽argued a year ago last week.

The cases pending before courts around the country fall into a few general categories. 鈥淐lawback鈥� cases like the one in Illinois seek the refund of past union dues. Others seek to end time limits on when objecting employees can withdraw from unions, or to challenge unions鈥� right to exclusively negotiate with employers on workers鈥� behalf.

Those lawsuits, experts said, could amplify the impact Janus has on union membership rolls and coffers. Though some union officials had planned for a substantial hit in the wake of the high court鈥檚 ruling, that isn鈥檛 evidenced so far in unions鈥� public disclosures.

The overall rate of public-sector union membership fell about half a percentage point from 2017 to 2018, but the rate for local government employees, like teachers, actually grew, according to聽.

Among states that had previously required dues payments from public employees 鈥� where Janus should have had the biggest impact 鈥� the figures are mixed. The rate of union membership, including both the public and private sectors, dropped in California, Connecticut, Illinois, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York, but it rose in Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Washington.

The American Federation of Teachers, the country鈥檚 second-largest teachers union, added 88,500 members between November 2017 and November 2018, 鈥渕ore than offsetting鈥� the 84,600 members the union 鈥渓ost with the stroke of a pen鈥� after the Janus decision, Andrew Crook, AFT鈥檚 assistant director for media affairs, said in an email.

The group has also won 11 elections to establish a union in a workplace since Janus, tripled its membership budget since 2014, and 鈥渘early doubled鈥� the number of voters contacted in the 2018 elections, he added.

AFT President Randi Weingarten told Senate Democrats last summer that members were sticking with a union, and members鈥� level of union advocacy in anticipation of the decision was unprecedented in her two-decade career.

The National Education Association, the country鈥檚 largest teachers union, did not respond to a request for comment.

Experts offered various reasons for the so-far limited decline in union membership, including the short window between the Janus decision and data reporting to the federal government, and, despite , a general lack of knowledge about the ruling.

鈥淐onsidering that the decision was barely a half-year old at that point [when data was submitted], I think that it鈥檚 probably fair to say that the worst is yet to come. And that鈥檚 just assuming that the Janus decision is limited to what unions hope it鈥檚 limited to,鈥� Joseph Slater, a law professor at the University of Toledo, told 麻豆精品.

Meaning, according to Slater, that those pending lawsuits could further reduce membership rolls and union coffers.

The Riffey case, which is supported by the National Right to Work Foundation, seeks the return of $32 million in past dues from the state鈥檚 Service Employees International Union chapter.

The particular issue in the Riffey case is whether all home health aides in the state should be deemed members of the same class; lower courts have ruled they are not. In general, unions fighting these clawback lawsuits have said they were relying on Supreme Court precedent at the time that allowed the collection of mandatory dues.

The union 鈥渇ollowed the then-applicable laws, because prior to Janus, collection and use of compelled agency fees was lawful,鈥� an . A federal court threw out that Washington case, which also sought repayment of past dues.

William Messenger, a staff attorney with the National Right to Work Foundation, who argued 闯补苍耻蝉听and is the lead attorney on Riffey, disputed that such a defense is viable.

鈥淭here鈥檚 no such thing as a good faith defense to First Amendment violations. The defense doesn鈥檛 exist,鈥� he said.

At a minimum, he added, unions should have been on notice for the past several years, when the Supreme Court made smaller changes to union laws in the pre-Janus cases in 2012 and 2014.

鈥淭he idea that they were innocent in this situation just doesn鈥檛 hold water,鈥� Messenger said.

Requiring unions to repay decades鈥� worth of dues would be a 鈥渄oomsday scenario鈥� for unions financially, Slater, the University of Toledo professor, said.

As it is, they鈥檙e already spending more to fight this wave of lawsuits at the same time they are grappling with lower dues revenue, he noted.

Other lawsuits are seeking to overturn limits on the time in which dissenting members may withdraw their union membership.

And still other lawsuits are challenging exclusive representation, the idea that only one union can represent workers before their employer.

In a case pending before a Massachusetts state court, several educators at the college and K-12 levels are challenging a law that forbids non-union members from voting on contracts or otherwise participating in union decisions.

Forcing teachers to join the union to have a say in workplace policies amounts to illegal coercion, Bruce Cameron, an attorney for the dissenting teachers, told 麻豆精品.

鈥淭he real evil, from our point of view, is our clients being whack-jacked into supporting union politics in exchange for having a voice in what I think most employees would consider to be one of the most important aspects of their life,鈥� he said.

Did you use this article in your work?

We鈥檇 love to hear how 麻豆精品鈥檚 reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers.