The Janus Decision
When I was a senior in high school, I heard more than once this piece of advice: “Don’t become a teacher! You’ll never make any money!”
Despite this advice (perhaps, in spite of it), I tried to become a teacher anyway. I did not succeed. I was too shy and introverted to dominate classrooms full of American teenagers. My wife was much better at it, and she has become better still with experience. (She teaches younger kids, but even 9 and 10 year olds can be impossible sometimes.) She is a respected by parents and students alike, and every so often, a teenager or a young person in their twenties will come up and say what a positive influence my wife had on their lives.
After I left teaching, I entered the private sector. I now work for a respected, well known, wealthy and successful corporation. Here is the irony: my wife, the teacher, earns twice my salary.
While corporations have been suppressing wages, treating their employees as expenses rather than assets, public sector salaries have continued to grow. Government jobs - city and county positions, police and fire, teachers - are now the bastion of the middle class, one of the few places in the economy where one can earn $50,000-$99,999 annually.
These high salaries are due in large part because of public sector unions.
My wife is a member of the California Teachers Association, a powerful political force in our state. A certain amount of her monthly dues goes to CTA’s political campaigns and lobbying. In terms of the group’s ability to turn out voters and ramp up phone and email campaigns on a moment’s notice, CTA is the liberal version of the NRA.
Teachers who disagreed with CTA’s political positions became agency fee payers. They paid dues to cover the cost of collective bargaining, but they kept the portion of their dues that go to CTA’s political activities. This has been the law in many states for over 40 years.
Until today. In the Supreme Court decision Janus v AFSCME, the court ruled that all of a union’s activities could be considered political in nature, and that forcing someone to pay union dues was a violation of that individual’s free speech rights. Members of Unions and Associations must now “opt-in,” and agree to pay dues for both salary negotiations and for political campaigns.
Make no mistake – this argument was not made out of a genuine concern for free speech rights. The lawyers and think tanks behind the Janus briefs were intent on one thing alone: to kill vocal, liberal-leaning unions like CTA. The thought is that many members will stop paying dues altogether, and the unions will starve.
Janus, the man himself, was a public service employee from Illinois. He could hardly show that he had been harmed by his local union, which negotiated a generous salary and benefits package on his behalf. Had he been in the private sector, he likely would be making far less money each month. His benefits package would be less generous, and he certainly would not have a pension. His union may have been left-leaning, but he was free to vote Republican if that were his choice. He was free to advocate for conservative causes online and at public meetings.
I do not have a union advocating for me at the negotiating table. In fact, there is no negotiations at all. My boss tells me what my pay raise will or will not be, and I accept it. During the downturn of 2007-2008, my company suspended 401(k) matches. I did not get a voice in that decision. I had no way to protest other than to leave my job (which I did not do).
My company lobbied for the recent tax cut, and crowed about it in their annual report once they had it. I happen to side with economists that say this tax cut will be a disaster for the United States if it is not quickly repealed and undone. No one came from my company, asking me if I support their efforts. They assumed I would agree with them, that they knew best. Even now, when I am criticizing them, I’m being coy, because I’m not authorized to speak on behalf of the company. If I exercise my free speech rights to openly criticize them in public, I could get fired.
I do not make a monthly deduction from my pay to support my company’s political activities. Yet, money that could be put aside for wages is instead re-directed to all sorts of activities that I may or may not agree with: political campaigns, stock buybacks, dividend increases, executive bonuses, etc. I have no say, no voice, because I do not have a union.
I have no idea how much my company invests in lobbying each year. Let’s say they spend $5 million annually. And let’s say that my company has 400,000 employees (also not correct, but it’s close). My “share” of that $5 mil is $12.50. Did anybody come around and ask me if I wanted that $12.50 invested in lobbying? Did I “opt-in” to have that money directed to pushing politicians for a tax break? If they did ask me and my co-workers what we would like to be done with that money, I bet we would pocket the $12.50!
The conservative think tanks that dreamed up the Janus case would be horrified if their arguments were utilized in this manner. The Janus decision is not about free speech. It is an act of oppression, one of a string of shameful recent SCOTUS decisions. The intent is to break the powerful public unions and crush one of the few sectors putting upward pressure on wages.
Despite this advice (perhaps, in spite of it), I tried to become a teacher anyway. I did not succeed. I was too shy and introverted to dominate classrooms full of American teenagers. My wife was much better at it, and she has become better still with experience. (She teaches younger kids, but even 9 and 10 year olds can be impossible sometimes.) She is a respected by parents and students alike, and every so often, a teenager or a young person in their twenties will come up and say what a positive influence my wife had on their lives.
After I left teaching, I entered the private sector. I now work for a respected, well known, wealthy and successful corporation. Here is the irony: my wife, the teacher, earns twice my salary.
While corporations have been suppressing wages, treating their employees as expenses rather than assets, public sector salaries have continued to grow. Government jobs - city and county positions, police and fire, teachers - are now the bastion of the middle class, one of the few places in the economy where one can earn $50,000-$99,999 annually.
These high salaries are due in large part because of public sector unions.
My wife is a member of the California Teachers Association, a powerful political force in our state. A certain amount of her monthly dues goes to CTA’s political campaigns and lobbying. In terms of the group’s ability to turn out voters and ramp up phone and email campaigns on a moment’s notice, CTA is the liberal version of the NRA.
Teachers who disagreed with CTA’s political positions became agency fee payers. They paid dues to cover the cost of collective bargaining, but they kept the portion of their dues that go to CTA’s political activities. This has been the law in many states for over 40 years.
Until today. In the Supreme Court decision Janus v AFSCME, the court ruled that all of a union’s activities could be considered political in nature, and that forcing someone to pay union dues was a violation of that individual’s free speech rights. Members of Unions and Associations must now “opt-in,” and agree to pay dues for both salary negotiations and for political campaigns.
Make no mistake – this argument was not made out of a genuine concern for free speech rights. The lawyers and think tanks behind the Janus briefs were intent on one thing alone: to kill vocal, liberal-leaning unions like CTA. The thought is that many members will stop paying dues altogether, and the unions will starve.
Janus, the man himself, was a public service employee from Illinois. He could hardly show that he had been harmed by his local union, which negotiated a generous salary and benefits package on his behalf. Had he been in the private sector, he likely would be making far less money each month. His benefits package would be less generous, and he certainly would not have a pension. His union may have been left-leaning, but he was free to vote Republican if that were his choice. He was free to advocate for conservative causes online and at public meetings.
I do not have a union advocating for me at the negotiating table. In fact, there is no negotiations at all. My boss tells me what my pay raise will or will not be, and I accept it. During the downturn of 2007-2008, my company suspended 401(k) matches. I did not get a voice in that decision. I had no way to protest other than to leave my job (which I did not do).
My company lobbied for the recent tax cut, and crowed about it in their annual report once they had it. I happen to side with economists that say this tax cut will be a disaster for the United States if it is not quickly repealed and undone. No one came from my company, asking me if I support their efforts. They assumed I would agree with them, that they knew best. Even now, when I am criticizing them, I’m being coy, because I’m not authorized to speak on behalf of the company. If I exercise my free speech rights to openly criticize them in public, I could get fired.
I do not make a monthly deduction from my pay to support my company’s political activities. Yet, money that could be put aside for wages is instead re-directed to all sorts of activities that I may or may not agree with: political campaigns, stock buybacks, dividend increases, executive bonuses, etc. I have no say, no voice, because I do not have a union.
I have no idea how much my company invests in lobbying each year. Let’s say they spend $5 million annually. And let’s say that my company has 400,000 employees (also not correct, but it’s close). My “share” of that $5 mil is $12.50. Did anybody come around and ask me if I wanted that $12.50 invested in lobbying? Did I “opt-in” to have that money directed to pushing politicians for a tax break? If they did ask me and my co-workers what we would like to be done with that money, I bet we would pocket the $12.50!
The conservative think tanks that dreamed up the Janus case would be horrified if their arguments were utilized in this manner. The Janus decision is not about free speech. It is an act of oppression, one of a string of shameful recent SCOTUS decisions. The intent is to break the powerful public unions and crush one of the few sectors putting upward pressure on wages.
No comments have been added yet.
