Author: admin

SCOTUS declines to hear case seeking union fees reimbursement

SCOTUS declines to hear case seeking union fees reimbursement

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a case last week that would require public sector unions to reimburse nonmember employees for the agency fees it collected from employees before the high court in 2018 deemed this arrangement to be unconstitutional.

In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mark Janus, a child support specialist from Illinois who challenged the constitutionality of his union collecting agency fees (or so-called “fair share fees”) on his behalf. On June 27, 2018, the high court ruled that public unions may not deduct dues, fees or other payments from a public employee without first obtaining their “affirmative consent.” The landmark decision affirmed the First Amendment rights of public employees, who can no longer be compelled to pay dues or fees to a union as a condition of employment.

The case declined by the court last week sought to revisit this decision and require public unions to reimburse nonmembers for the agency fees it collected from them prior to the decision. The case landed before the high court after it was dismissed by the federal district court and federal appeals court. Both courts determined the unions did not owe back pay to employees because they were acting in “good faith” at the time they charged nonmember fees, since the precedent nullifying agency fees had not yet been issued.

Jeffrey Schwab, an attorney at the Liberty Justice Center, said in a written statement that the organization is disappointed the Supreme Court did not hear the case.

“We are continuing to fight for back fees for government employees who paid money to unions against their will,” he said.

States should join Texas, Alaska in efforts to comply with Janus decision

States should join Texas, Alaska in efforts to comply with Janus decision

In the 2018 court case Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that mandatory union fees in the public sector violate public sector employees’ right to free speech. As a result, public sector unions, such as the AFSCME, cannot collect any fees associated with sustaining a union as a condition of employment. Despite this decision, many states continue to maintain rules that make it difficult for workers to choose whether they want to financially support a union. Alaska and Texas are changing this, and other states should join them.

The Janus v. AFSCME decision stated that government workers had to “affirmatively consent” before union fees could be deducted from their paychecks. But in many states, workers are not being clearly informed of their right to abstain from paying union fees. Additionally, workers who don’t want to support their union have been told they must wait until a limited period—sometimes as short as 10 days—after current collective bargaining agreements expire before they can opt out. These rules preclude workers from providing affirmative consent and are inconsistent with the Janus decision.

Continue reading at Forbes.com.

Janus, whose case ended mandatory union fees, wants Supreme Court’s help getting money back

Janus, whose case ended mandatory union fees, wants Supreme Court’s help getting money back

The plaintiff whose 2018 case led to a Supreme Court ruling that mandatory public union agency fees for nonmembers were unconstitutional is now asking the high court to force the union that represented him to return a portion of the money it collected before that decision.

In this most recent case, Janus v. AFSCME III, plaintiff Mark Janus is asking for the union to pay back fees it took from his paycheck before the landmark ruling in his 2018 case. He claims that the Supreme Court’s ruling should be retroactive, echoing other claims that have been made in federal court, including a sweeping class action that was filed in California last year.

Read more on FoxNews.com.