Janus v. AFSCME: How will it Affect Members of the TAUP Collective Bargaining Unit?

Janus case challenges an important SCOTUS case from 1977, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. Abood found that public sector workers in a collective bargaining unit (CBU) could be charged a fee to cover the costs associated with bargaining for and maintaining a contract, even if they preferred to not become dues paying members of their union. The fee collected in lieu of dues, referred to as “fair share” or as an “agency fee” is less than the cost of full dues.

In addition, dues would not be used for political purposes, so when joining a union, individuals are given a choice to contribute additional support to a separate political fund if they so choose (called COPE for AFT/TAUP). The ruling separated the cost of union work from a local’s advocacy of political issues/candidates, and thus provided a way to accommodate CBU members who wanted to support only direct union costs.

Since unions must represent everyone in their bargaining unit whether they are dues paying members or not, Abood recognized that unions do a significant amount of important and costly work for non-dues paying members, and that paying members’ dues are used in legal and other support of non-payers. Abood established that everyone in a CBU should be paying a fair share so the union could bargain, represent and advocate well for the members of their CBU.

Janus is challenging the collection of fair share dues, saying that it violates the First Amendment right to free speech of some union constituents. The case was initiated by Bruce Rauner, the anti-union Republican governor of Illinois, and has been backed by powerful right-wing groups (the National Right to Work Foundation, Freedom Foundation, Liberty Justice Center, Fairness Center, and Center for Individual Rights), who are eager to weaken the power of workers through diminishing the resources of their unions.

Currently, TAUP collects dues only from individuals in the bargaining unit who wish to become dues paying members. Fair share is written into our contract, but we have yet to reach the level of membership needed to trigger it. Having fair share would be, well…fair. Until we reach the 70% full time membership threshold, our dues paying members are providing the resources the union needs to represent everyone.

Even though no member of the TAUP bargaining unit pays fair share, a ruling against AFSCME will affect you. It will have an impact on our state and national affiliates, the AFTPA and AFT, who we often rely on for assistance in legal and legislative issues, and they have offered great support for our ongoing organizing. The right-wing groups that have been supporting the Janus case have prepared to further erode union strength if the Court rules in their favor. The Guardian recently reported on “a network of radical conservative think tanks spanning all 50 states is planning direct marketing campaigns targeted personally at union members to encourage them to quit.”  If Janus wins, there will be aggressive outreach from anti-union activists, and it is very possible that you will be contacted. Their intent will be to convince people to leave their unions. They may offer you a product to cover some of the work that unions do for their members. For example, there are businesses that operate in right-to-work states that offer low price memberships for health insurance and some legal support.

It is important, however, to recognize the differences between outside groups and TAUP.  TAUP bargains for more than any outside business can. The Union has the power to negotiate over workplace policies. Outside entities have no say in the majority of issues that affect the quality of your work or your life. They can’t negotiate over job security, workload, tenure, merit or promotion.  For one very recent example, see the SCOTUS case decided this week that prevents employees from banding together to force their employers to keep promises about wages and workload. In contrast, TAUP is a collective made up of people like you who work here at Temple. Officers, Executive Committee and Constituency Council members are not here to financially profit from this work. We work simultaneously on behalf of ourselves and our colleagues. We are in solidarity with each other. That is our purpose, and it is our strength.

We will continue to report to you about the Janus case as further details emerge. If you have any questions or would like to work with TAUP in protecting our workplace rights at this critical time, become a member if you haven’t joined yet, and talk to a TAUP officer or Constituency Council Chair or Member at Large about your interests, skills, and availability.

Officers:

Tenured/Tenure Track Constituency Council: