麻豆精品

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 麻豆精品 Newsletter

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear three cases in which some educators argue that unions continue to violate their First Amendment rights three years after a landmark ruling that made collecting fees from 鈥渘onconsenting鈥� public sector employees unconstitutional.

The plaintiffs in the first two cases, Troesch v. Chicago Teachers Union and Fischer v. Murphy in New Jersey, said that so-called 鈥渆scape periods鈥� 鈥� short windows of time in which employees can opt out of paying union dues 鈥� are allowing states to avoid compliance with the court鈥檚 2018 decision in . 

In Janus, the court ruled that the fees violate non-union members鈥� First Amendment rights because that money subsidizes political and policy positions.

The court on Monday also denied a request to hear a case from a Chicago teacher, , who argues he should receive a refund for the union fees he paid. Ocol has the picket line in the past two Chicago teacher strikes in 2016 and 2019.

A Supreme Court ruling on the post-Janus lawsuits would have impacted nearly 5 million members of public sector unions, according to the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which has been fighting what it calls 鈥渟chemes鈥� to get around the 2018 ruling. For example, 17 states limit withdrawal from the union to official escape periods, which can range from 10 to 30 days. If educators miss that opt-out window, school districts continue withdrawing the union dues from their paychecks for another year. Some of the laws were passed shortly after the Janus decision. But the Foundation and its clients haven鈥檛 been successful, and the appellate courts for the 3rd, 7th, 9th and 10th circuits have upheld restrictions on when employees can opt out of paying fees.

鈥淲e are disappointed the Supreme Court did not take this opportunity to clarify this important issue,鈥� Patrick Semmens, the Foundation鈥檚 vice president, said in a statement. 鈥淲e believe the Janus ruling does not permit public sector employees鈥� constitutional rights to be limited to an arbitrary union-created 鈥榚scape period,鈥� and that eventually the High Court will need to step in to prevent Janus from being undermined.鈥�

The Foundation continues to聽press that point. In late October, the Foundation asked the court to hear several that don鈥檛 involve teachers. The anti-union attorneys argue some new employees are never informed about their right to refuse to pay dues under the Janus decision.

According to Colin Sharkey, executive director of the non-union Association of American Educators, thousands of teachers contact the organization each year for help on how to exit their union.

鈥淣umerous states made it even harder to leave the union in the aftermath of the Janus decision, greatly limiting the will of many public employees,鈥� he said.

But unions, which have seen declines in membership, maintain that they negotiate on behalf of all employees, whether or not they want to be part of a union. 

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, said the court鈥檚 denial 鈥渆xposed these frivolous cases for what they are: a cynical attempt by well-funded, anti-union radicals to flood the zone with countless post-Janus lawsuits to drain unions of resources.鈥�

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.