(Journal Courier)—To Illinois College alum Mark Janus, who is at the center of a history-making Supreme Court case, it’s about standing up for what he believes is right.
It’s that belief that resulted in his fight against the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union to the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court’s decision could play a pivotal role in how union dues are handled for non-union employees.
“My parents raised me believing that if you start something you need to finish it and that we need to stand up with our principles,” Janus said. “It’s part of what I learned in scouting as a boy scout growing up. After I got older and became a scout leader, it’s a lesson that I taught my scouts: That they have to stand up for what they believe in.”
Janus is a lifelong native of Springfield, excluding his four-year education with Illinois College where he majored in business administration. He spent some time working for the Jacksonville Journal-Courier after his graduation in 1975 and then moved briefly to Peoria before coming back to work for his dad at his company Jaeger Beauty Supply Company.
After the company closed, Janus went to work for the state in the Department of Commerce and Community Affairs, issuing small business loans for economic development purposes. He then went on to do accounting for a Springfield printing company, started his own business selling spiral binding, and then landed back at the state as a child-support specialist after selling his company.
It was as a specialist he started noticing a line-item on his checks that read “union dues.”
“My initial thought was, ‘What’s going on here? I’m not a member of the union,’” he said. “I never signed a pledge card. I never signed to join up. I asked a member of my peers and they said that whether you’re a member or not you have to pay this fee. I didn’t like it, but it was a condition of my employment.”
“As time went on, and as more money kept coming out, I kept seeing what was going on with the state and its fiscal chaos, if you will, and I became more and more dissatisfied,” Janus continued. “It got to the point that I finally said ‘I’ve just got to stand up for my principles. I don’t agree with this.’ Then, through my various contacts, I learned about the Liberty Justice Center.”
Janus is represented by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and the Liberty Justice Center in Janus v. AFSCME which challenges the precedent set by Abood v. Detroit Board of Education in 1977 that has allowed unions to impose dues on non-member employees on a state and local level.
Initially, Janus explained, he and his litigation team thought that their case might be over as the 2015 case Friedrichs v. California made its way to the Supreme Court. Rebecca Friedrichs sued the teacher’s union at her school over a nearly identical complaint that the collection of dues from a non-union employee was a violation of First Amendment rights.
However, Justice Antonin Scalia’s death in Feb. 2016 lead to a 4-4 split decision and Janus’ case moved forward. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on Sept. 28, 2017.
“If they had ruled in favor on her case, our case would not have to proceed because that would have satisfied everything we were looking for,” he said.
As the case came to the Supreme Court, two plaintiffs that were originally attached the case were dropped. Jacob Huebert, one of Janus’ attorneys, said that Department of Health executive Marie Quigley stopped participating early in the case and Department of Transportation land acquisition engineer Bryan Trigg’s case was thrown out by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals due to a previous case he held against a union regarding religious beliefs.
This left Janus as the sole plaintiff in the case, which left both widespread attention and criticism to sit squarely on his shoulders.
Unions criticize Janus for being a “free rider,” or someone who would benefit from collective bargaining without paying union dues. Pro-union advocates argue that by stripping unions of the power to collect such fees, they would essentially encourage workers to not pay.
Janus said that the case has caused a rift between himself and the union employees at the state, where he continues to work to this day, but that the criticism has only strengthened his resolve. He explained that the case isn’t about unions, with which he has no issue, but about his rights as an individual.
“This whole case is about freedom of choice,” Janus said. “I openly admit, and I’ve stated it numerous times, that I’m not against collective bargaining and I’m not against unions. They’ve been a part of this country for years. Where I draw the line is the fact that I don’t have a choice in the matter. This is mandatory. This is coercion. The unions look at it like I’m going to try and end all collective bargaining and that it’s going to end unions.”
“If the unions are as good and benevolent as they lead people to believe, why do they have to force and coerce people to pay a fee?,” he asked.
The courts heard the case’s oral arguments on Feb. 26. Until then, it’s a lot of waiting for Janus and his attorneys until the court issues a decision by the end of its term toward the end of June. Huebert said that they’re optimistic about the case that they have made and eagerly await the decision.
“The constitution is on our side,” Huebert said. “Of course, you can’t predict these things, but we’re hopeful.”