Ruling could whack labor
As the new year brings us closer to a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court in Janus vs. AFSCME, many labor professionals are wringing their hands at what could be the biggest anti-union judicial pronouncement in 40 years. A ruling in favor of Janus would mean public-sector employees could choose to quit their unions and not pay dues, while the unions would still be legally bound to represent them — a financially draining scenario for the labor movement.
The case of Janus is not a new legal philosophy. In fact, the same issues were decided in the 1977 Supreme Court decision in Abood vs. Detroit Board of Education, which found that unionized states’ need to maintain labor peace overrides an individual employee’s right to freedom of speech and association.
Abood’s framework has been followed and worked well for a long time — although the infiltration of nonunionized employees into unionized work environments has steadily eroded the great trade unions in many traditionally pro-labor states.
Follow the money and you will easily see that top corporate executives and billionaire contributors to right-to-work organizations throughout the country are willing to dig deep to help eliminate the union shop — one of the main protections that helps keep workers’ pay above minimum wage. They are joined by the political front groups of the anti-union movement, such as the American Legislative Exchange Council, which funnels large amounts of money to local, state and federal politicians to advance its anti-union agenda. Recent anti-union successes in Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri and Ohio have made this group into a juggernaut that has changed the playing field when it comes to employee rights to decent wages and benefits.
Anyone who looks at the data regarding wages and benefits in unionized states compared to nonunionized states can clearly discern the disparity in income among employees.
The most recent U.S. Labor Department reports show that police in unionized states make twice to three times as much as police in right-to-work states like Florida, Mississippi and Virginia. Most law enforcers in these states are forced to work multiple jobs in security or part-time policing to reach some semblance of a decent living.
But what’s at stake here is more than wages and benefits — it’s the ability of workers to come together and work effectively for the betterment of their lives, which in turn improves the quality of life in their homes and the communities they live in.
If the Supreme Court does find in favor of Janus, it will greatly impact a union’s ability to speak as one unified voice for its members, and as its coffers drain so will its political strength and its overall effectiveness. And as we’ve already seen in right-to-work states, the end result overall is a profound weakening of employees’ overall ability to advocate for fair treatment in the workplace.
Richard Mulvaney is a retired NYPD lieutenant who for the past 27 years has worked as a lawyer primarily representing police officers cross the country. He has worked in the Bronx district attorney’s office and as a department special prosecutor for the NYPD, and is a frequent lecturer on union employee rights, collective bargaining and other issues.