Janus decision biggest victory for workers’ rights in a generation

SHARE Janus decision biggest victory for workers’ rights in a generation

Mark Janus, left, accompanied by Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner, right, speaks outside the Supreme Court on June 27, 2018. | AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

The United States Supreme Court has just delivered the biggest victory for workers’ rights in a generation. The case is Janus v. AFSCME. The plaintiff is Mark Janus, a child-support specialist who works for the state of Illinois. And I’m proud that the litigation firm of which I am president, the Liberty Justice Center, represented Mark in this landmark case.


Soon after Mark began working in state government, he noticed that money was coming out of his paychecks and going to a union, AFSCME Council 31 – even though he wasn’t a member of that union and no one had ever asked him if he wanted to give money to it. Then he found out had no choice in the matter.

That’s because Illinois is one of 22 states with a law on the books authorizing the government to force workers to pay union fees just to keep their jobs. Nationwide, these laws have compelled about 5 million public-sector workers to give part of each paycheck to a union, whether they wanted to or not.

But with this ruling, that practice ends.

The court recognized that the business of public sector unions is politics. That’s what AFSCME and other government unions are all about. They are political organizations whose primary mission is to grow the size and cost of government. So when workers give money to a public sector union, it goes to their political agenda.

With this ruling, unions still have the right to lobby for this agenda. But because of this ruling, government unions no longer have the right to force workers to give them money if they don’t want to.

The court was right to side with Mark Janus in this case. In its decision, the court affirmed that the First Amendment protects every individual’s right to choose which private organizations they will and won’t support with their money. It declared that a person shouldn’t have to give up that right just because he or she wants to advocate for children in child-support cases, be a firefighter, or teach in a public school.

As a result of this decision, all government workers across the country are now free to choose which groups they will and won’t support with their money. In other words, Americans who work in government now have the same First Amendment rights as everyone else.

And these workers stand to benefit from the court’s decision in another way. Until now, government unions in states with mandatory fees have had little incentive to listen to the people they supposedly represent. Why bother if the fees are mandatory? Now that workers have a choice whether they want to support the union or not, the unions will have to earn their support – like almost every other private organization in America.

View this document on ScribdGovernment unions have complained that a decision in Mark Janus’ favor will somehow hamper their ability to represent workers, but that’s not true. Government workers who want to be part of a union still can; that hasn’t changed. Government unions can still organize and represent workers and advocate for the things they believe in, just as they always have. Only one thing will be different: from now on, the unions will have to do those things using money that people give them voluntarily.

The truth is, Janus v. AFSCME simply puts each worker in control of how to spend their money. It gives workers a choice and a voice when it comes to unions in their workplace. That’s something everyone who claims to champion workers’ rights should celebrate.

Pat Hughes is president of the Liberty Justice Center, which represented Mark Janus in the Supreme Court case Janus v. AFSCME together with co-counsel from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.


• In a blow to unions, government workers no longer have to pay ‘fair share’ fees

• Gov. Bruce Rauner in Washington awaiting Janus decision

• Who is Mark Janus?

• Why our nation is watching Illinois case Janus v. AFSCME

• Unions, anticipating Janus case Supreme Court loss, jump-start recruiting drives

• Janus v. AFSCME: Rauner, Lisa Madigan and the Illinois case at the Supreme Court

• Unions rally in Loop over ‘fair share’ case being heard before Supreme Court

• Gorsuch deciding vote in key labor union funding case with Illinois roots

• Trump administration takes Rauner’s side in ‘fair share’ case

• Supreme Court to hear challenge to unions

• Rauner happy with court’s fair-share review; AFSCME critical

• Judge allows union-fee suit to proceed — without Rauner

• 3 state employees want to join Rauner lawsuit over ‘fair share’ union fees


• Collective action is unions’ last defense – and high court on verge of ending it

• Janus case is part of continuing attack on workers

• Union ‘fair share’ fees protect all workers without infringing on free speech

The Latest
Almost anyone on the Hawks’ roster might be available at the right price. The Hawks are still waiting for Patrick Kane’s and Jonathan Toews’ decisions, but those two are not the only players potentially on the move.
The period from when a gun is bought until it’s recovered in a crime was far lower in Chicago than in New York or Los Angeles, according to a new federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives report.
After a season as the worst team in the NFL, the Bears have a long list of needs. Here’s a look at how to fill some of them in the draft.
Finding an unbroken, contiguous stretch of open land is hard in an urban area. Some environmentalists worry this idea is on the back burner.