(Tampa Free Press)—As we celebrate Labor Day, a day dedicated to honoring the contributions of American workers, it is imperative to reflect on the evolving landscape of worker rights. This reflection is particularly poignant in the context of the landmark 2018 Supreme Court case Janus v. AFSCME, which has given public sector unions and their members the freedom to choose between joining or not joining a union.
Labor Day has its roots in the late 19th century labor movement—a time when American workers fought for fair wages, reasonable working hours, and safer working conditions. But over the years, the labor movement has been dominated increasingly by the political public-sector.
In 2018, the Supreme Court’s decision in Janus significantly increased the freedom of public-sector union employees—I was the plaintiff of this lawsuit. Working as a child support specialist employed by the state of Illinois, I was forced to pay union fees just to keep my job. I argued that this violated my First Amendment rights. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in my favor, declaring that public-sector employees cannot be compelled to pay agency fees to unions if they choose not to join them. The Court’s decision established that forcing non-consenting employees to pay these fees is a violation of their First Amendment rights, as it compels them to support the union’s political and ideological activities—even if they oppose those activities.
Supporters of the Supreme Court’s ruling hailed it as a victory for individual rights, emphasizing that workers should have the freedom to choose whether to financially support a union.
Public sector unions, on the other hand, have largely ignored the ruling. They did have to stop taking money from workers who already weren’t union members. But otherwise they’ve done everything they can to stop members who want to quit and new employees from exercising their rights.
And they have become increasingly political. They have already received much of what they’ve wanted with respect to high salaries and generous pensions. So now they are turning to other political issues—including measures designed to increase their numbers and make up for the revenue they lost as a result of my case.
For example, the PRO Act is an umbrella bill that would hand unions everything they have demanded to violate the rights of workers and employers who do not want to be unionized. It would prohibit employers from holding meetings at work to explain the employer’s side of the equation, ban state right-to-work laws, do away with the secret ballot, and make California’s infamous anti-independent-worker AB5 national.
Using the law to grow their numbers, they use millions of dollars of member dues to elect candidates—in many cases, the very officials they sit across the table from when bargaining.
Who is left out of this equation? Taxpayers.
And besides seeking ever-more taxpayer money, unions also use member dues to advocate for radical positions that have nothing to do with the union’s supposed purpose. For example, they have supported defunding police, professed views on Israel and Palestine that some consider to be antisemitic, promoted allowing schools to keep secrets from parents about their child’s gender identity and sexuality, and opposed educational opportunities like charter schools, to name just a few items on their agenda.
Whatever you think about these issues, they should be discussed by citizens in the public square—not resolved in collective bargaining, or influenced by unions exercising legal privileges no other person or groups has.
As Justice Alito wrote in his Supreme Court decision, “The fight for worker rights is far from over, and recent legal developments underscore the ongoing challenges.” My case went a long way toward respecting workers’ rights, but, as we enjoy Labor Day, we should remember that there’s more to do to ensure they aren’t forced to be a part of other people’s political battles just to do their jobs.
Mark Janus is a Senior Fellow at the Liberty Justice Center.