Janus decision rocks labor, politics

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday jammed a wedge between organized labor and Democratic Party interests in Illinois. The justices sided with the plaintiff, Illinois state worker Mark Janus, in a case about the right of government workers to decline paying fees to a union with whom they disagree on public policy issues.

The court’s 5-4 opinion, based on First Amendment grounds, said Janus and other state employees are not obliged to pay fees to a union representing government employees because such a requirement — now the law in more than 20 states — compels them to “subsidize the speech of other private speakers.”

“States and public-sector unions may no longer extract agency fees from nonconsenting employees,” Justice Samuel Alito Jr. wrote for the majority. “This procedure violates the First Amendment and cannot continue.”

If other government workers follow Janus and stop paying fair-share fees, the ruling likely means organized labor leaders will be able to deliver less money to their political allies — chiefly Democrats.

It’s a blockbuster that immediately becomes a focus of the race for Illinois governor between Republican incumbent Bruce Rauner and Democratic challenger J.B. Pritzker. Rauner initiated this case, which Janus eventually joined as plaintiff. Rauner is pinning his re-election hopes in part on the claim that he can weaken a Democratic machine that taxes heavily in order to reward its friends in organized labor. He’s counting on the Janus decision to give him momentum.

We’re intrigued — and hopeful — about the implications of Janus v. AFSCME Council 31. If government workers don’t have to contribute, maybe this begins a reckoning for the political class of Illinois. We’re not great fans of that symbiosis between one party and the public’s workforce. Unions have a vested interest in the taxing-and-spending status quo in Illinois, which in fiscal terms is a disaster. Democrats have been too happy to go along for the ride, saddling taxpayers with enormous public debts. The results for this state and its economy are political gridlock and disappointment: Illinois has weak job growth, a bleak credit rating and a $130 billion hole in the state’s pension funds. Those are largely byproducts of the hand-holding between unions and Dems.

The Supreme Court case focused on public sector unions’ ability to collect fees from nonmembers. Janus, a child-support specialist, chose not to join the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, but Illinois law said he was required to pay fair-share fees to the union since his compensation is determined by a contract negotiated between AFSCME and the state. Otherwise, he could be accused of freeloading.

State workers who decline to join a union already were exempt from that portion of dues that finances its political actions. But from Janus' perspective, almost everything a public union does is political in nature because taxpayers foot the salaries of state employees, teachers, police and the like. That’s how we see it: When AFSCME seeks higher wages or changes in work rules, it puts itself on one side of a public policy debate.

“Fundamental free speech rights are at stake,” Alito wrote.

Now we’ll see how the rights of the individuals who work in government impact the politics of Illinois.