Janus v. AFSCME Resources

Media Clips

Greg Hartnett, Fairness Center client and lead plaintiff, Hartnett v. PSEACourt should free teachers from forced unionism

Despite the trust given to me during my 19 years of teaching, there’s one major decision that’s been unjustly taken out of my hands: I must either give a teachers’ union a cut of my paycheck or lose my job.

Wall Street Journal: Mark Janus Was With Hillary, Whether or Not He Wanted to Be

These details reflect the basic truth that labor unions are political organizations. Everything they do, from massive political expenditures to bargaining activities, is shot through with political purpose and consideration. Under the First Amendment, they have the right to politic in all these ways—just as Mr. Janus has the right not to pay for it.

Wall Street Journal: Unions Act as if They’ve Already Lost

As teachers settle into a new school year, they will be shown a video…asking them to sign a “membership renewal” card. The union has already filled out cards for all of the state’s 86,000 teachers, who are asked merely to add their signatures. …

I’ve reviewed a copy of the form, which says the union is authorized to deduct dues from the teachers’ paychecks. It also includes the following fine print: “This authorization shall remain in effect and shall be automatically renewed from year to year, irrespective of my membership in the union, unless I revoke it by submitting written notice …”

National ReviewJanus v. AFSCME at the Supreme Court: What’s at Stake?

Coerced membership or payment to any organization is a losing moral proposition. Should it end, it would be a win for free speech and free association, and for the distinction between political partisanship and the smooth functioning of bureaucratic institutions.

Reason: Awaiting Court Ruling, California Unions Appear Surprisingly Impotent

A union official interviewed by CalMatters said a decision for Mark Janus could reduce union membership in California by 5 percent to 30 percent. That would be a large hit for them, but the government isn't supposed to protect the financial interests of private groups. It is supposed to protect the rights of the citizenry. Some unions have taken a constructive approach by preparing to improve their outreach efforts. That should be the model rather than passing these unfair bills.

Empire CenterCuomo’s next union giveaway

When Governor Andrew Cuomo recently signed a bill making it harder for government workers to extricate themselves from labor unions, he said it was just “the first step of the resistance.”

Translation: it wasn’t the last favor Cuomo hopes to do for New York’s powerful public-sector labor unions in anticipation of the coming U.S. Supreme Court decision in Janus v. AFSCME.

Watchdog.org: Unions circumventing the Supreme Court, before it’s even ruled

The most egregious examples come from New Jersey, where a union wish-list bill advanced out of committee on March 19. The bill combines tactics in legislation bubbling up in several union-friendly states.

Each tactic’s intent is to trap government employees into paying unions against their will. They include: making it harder for public employees to leave and stop paying the union; forcing new employees to sit through a union sales pitch; and restricting what public employers can tell their employees, among other things. The most shameless bill packages limit the public’s ability to reach government employees, while at the same time giving unions more access to these workers.

The 74 MillionAhead of a Key Supreme Court Decision, America’s Largest Teachers Union Slashes Budget by $50 Million, Projects That 300,000 Members May Leave

(Related: NEA Employs “Media 101” to Respond to Exclusive Story on Budget Cuts)

Commonwealth Foundation Resources

What Janus v. AFSCME Means for Public-Sector Workers
Pa. Government Union Politics: $114 Million Since 2007
Unions Send $1 Billion of Members' Dues to Liberal Groups

Case Info

Stand With Workers
Video: Meet Mark Janus
Liberty Justice Center: Janus v. AFSCME