How the U.S. Supreme Court got it wrong on Janus
The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Janus v. AFSCME Council 31 goes right to the heart of “Right-to-Work” laws, which were conceived with the sole intention of bankrupting unions and reduce the chance of workers advancing in society through organizing. To understand “Right to Work,” you must go back in history to 1935 and the creation of the National Labor Relations Act (also known as the Wagner Act). That was the year that Congress or more so, their constituents, finally had enough of decades of exploiting, abusing, cheating and killing of workers who fought for conditions we still enjoy today.
The Wagner Act did what it was supposed to do. It implemented a peaceful way for workers to obtain a voice in ones’ workplace. The first five years after passage, nearly 8 million workers were unionized. Only a few years after the Second World War, nearly one-third of American workers were unionized, providing better wages, benefits and job security, which created a new class of people, known as the Middle Class, which is nearing extinction.
The Wagner Act provided the common worker a voice in their workplace, regardless of race or gender, which infuriated business leaders and segregationists. Equality in America could surely now become a reality, if you went to work, worked hard and were able to bargain for your services, rather than having them dictated by the employer. This bothered the elite and big business, who lobbied Republicans and Democrats, to once again erode labor. Congress then crafted a bill called the Taft Hartley Act of 1947. At first, President Truman vetoed Taft Hartley and argued that it was a “dangerous intrusion on free speech,” and that it would “conflict with important principles of our democratic society.” One hundred and six Democrats in the House joined with 20 Democratic Senators to achieve the two-thirds majority needed to override the veto.
Taft-Hartley provided many components to employers. It now allowed companies the ability to legally put out propaganda views on unions to their workers during organizing drives, more importantly, having it done at captured mandatory meetings by the company without any rebuttal from the union! Taft-Hartley also outlawed industry-wide strikes, secondary boycotts, and sympathy strikes. The biggest win for business was the beginning of the erosion of the “closed shop.” First, a “closed shop” simply says if you work at a company that has a union, you must join the union whom the majority of employees have decided to have. Taft-Hartley then gave the states the right to decide this. Simply, if a state passed legislation forbidding closed shops, then you were free from union dues if you so elected.
If your company has a union, federal law mandates union representation, regardless of membership. By no mistake did Taft Hartley not address or re-legislate that requirement. This was raised by those who opposed it, but Congress had even a better plan to stifle labor. Congress knew a lot of northern states would not adapt right-to-work laws. They then crafted legislation that if a state did not adapt right-to-work laws, then you did not have to be a member of a union if you worked in a “closed shop,” but did have to pay “your fair share” or a service fee to the union for services rendered, a fee much lower than union dues.
Comically, during the Janus Hearing, Chief Justice Roberts noted; he felt union members would surely pay union dues if their union officials worked harder, if this ruling came to law. If true, then why can’t we all pay taxes on that supposition? Surely, if Americans felt they didn’t get their appropriate bang for their tax buck, then according to Roberts, if they stop paying taxes, then politicians and public workers would work harder to get those Americans back in the tax system? Chief Justice Roberts knows his statement is hogwash and he and the majority of justices further ignored the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution in the Janus decision. The Ninth Amendment simply gives enumerated rights to the citizens, which rights were retained by the people without spelling out each right. That said, a union must always maintain majority status in a workplace to be recognized. Since the Wagner Act was constitutionally sustained in 1937, and in 1977 the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in “Abood” that agency fees are for services rendered, and no one show get a free ride, the court today is now a political arm rather than a judicial one.
The Janus ruling is the epitome of hypocrisy, to the so-called conservative movement, who on one hand promotes all to pay their fair share and less government interaction in business, just as long as it don’t compromise their pockets!