Focus on Delco
JoAnne Baxter of Glenolden takes part in a rally at the Delaware County Children & Youth Services office in Upper Darby on Monday as the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in an important case involving public-sector unions.
UPPER DARBY » Members of Service Employees International Union Local 668 rallied outside of the county’s Children and Youth Services offices at 69th Street at high noon Monday to let the country know the importance of union labor.
The rally of about 20 union members came as the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case Janus v. AFSCME which will decide whether, in the public sector, union fees paid by non-union members constitute a violation of the First Amendment right of free speech.
In between union chants of “right to work has got to go” and “stand up, fight back” they dismissed the plaintiff, an Illinois state employee named Mark Janus, who doesn’t want to give his money to the union who represents him. The SEIU members fear that if the court rules in favor of Janus, it will deplete collective bargaining power for unions.
“SEIU 668 members in Delaware County, and across the state of Pennsylvania, are sending a loud, strong message to Washington, D.C., that regardless of any Supreme Court decision we will remain united because Americans need good union jobs more than ever,” said JoAnne Sessa, a dues-paying member of SEIU 668 and its secretary/treasurer. “Today we rise up against Janus which is part of a wellfunded campaign by the rich and powerful to divide us, us from our co-workers and limit our power in numbers we have together in our union.”
The money collected from member dues and non-member fees are used to help retain resources for effective bargaining strength for contractual terms including pay, benefits and time off. With Pennsylvania not being a right to work state – meaning workers covered by a union can refuse to join while paying the fees – SEIU want to keep that status to promote a workforce that provides a sustainable living.
“In short, my union job has provided my family with a quality of life that we would not have if I did not have my union,” said Sessa, a 30-year SEIU member. “Janus strikes out our freedom to join strong unions for a better future for our families and our communities.
“We will not allow any court case, any legislation, or any propaganda campaign take away our unions. We stand together today to make sure that America as an economy that works for everyone.”
At present, SEIU 668 represents 20,000 employees across the state; approximately 3,500 are fee payers.
As labor rallies happened across the area and the state, Gov. Tom Wolf issued a statement Monday in favor of unions and said the case before the Supreme Court will take the state backward.
“If the Janus case is decided against workers, they could lose the right to have their voices heard in their workplace,” read the statement. “As a former business owner, I know that it is great workers that make companies successful and when workers are welltreated, their success is even greater.
“Here in Pennsylvania we are going to fight for working families. A living wage and strong unions for workers will allow our economy to grow and strengthen Pennsylvania’s middle class. As the Supreme Court hears this case, we will do everything in our power to make sure Pennsylvanians can join together to fight for the good, union jobs our communities need.”
According to U.S. Department of Labor statistics about union affiliation for 2017, 723,000 of Pennsylvania’s 5.5 million workers were represented by a union, 665,000 of them being actual union members, equal to 12 percent of the workforce.
At the core of the Janus case is whether the $45 monthly fee he contributes to his union that goes toward contract negotiations involving salary and other benefits for government employees is inherently political. The First Amendment issue on this case stems from an over 40-year-old decision by the court in the case Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which ruled constitutional a government’s right to force a(n agency) fee to be paid by non-members, but using that money for political purposes would be a First Amendment violation.
A decision on this case should be expected near the end of the court’s term in June.