Public Statement: Janus v. AFSCME Decision

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on
LinkedIn
+

Pioneer Institute applauds the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Janus v. AFSCME, a case with significant implications for Massachusetts in which the Court held that public employees who choose not to join a union cannot be compelled to pay the union an “agency fee” to cover the cost of contract negotiations and workplace grievance procedures.

Pioneer believes that the constitutional guarantee of freedom of association means that just as union membership should never be banned, no one should ever be compelled to contribute to an organization with which s/he does not agree.

The ruling will have significant impact in Massachusetts, where 18 of the 20 political action committees that contributed the most to candidates for state and county offices were labor organizations, and 85 percent of all PAC contributions went to Democratic candidates, according to the latest data available from the Commonwealth’s Office of Campaign and Political Finance.  That 85 percent is undoubtedly higher among labor PAC contributions.  Janus will likely result in public employees having to earn membership, which translates to focusing more on issues like pay and working conditions that members care most about, and less on political activity.

The impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling may also have immediate legal implications.  A group of educators has petitioned the Commonwealth’s Supreme Judicial Court to hear a case challenging the payments they are compelled to make to unions as a condition of employment.

At the invitation of the Pacific Legal Fund, Pioneer, through its public interest law initiative PioneerLegal, signed onto an amicus brief that urged the Supreme Court to hear Janus v. AFSCME.  The Institute has also written a number of opinion pieces and made media appearances to discuss the case.

 

Stay Connected!

 

Related Posts

Public Statement: Janus v. AFSCME Decision

Pioneer Institute applauds the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion…

Public Statement: SJC Decision on Prop 80

Pioneer Institute and its public-interest law initiative, PioneerLegal,…

Time to End Legislative Exemptions from Public Records & Open Meeting Laws

/
Under Massachusetts law, the state Legislature is not considered…

Supreme Court Arguments in Compulsory Union Fee Case Set for Today

Outcome will affect similar petition pending before Massachusetts…

U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Arguments in Janus v. AFSCME

Pioneer Institute Signed onto Amicus Brief Urging Court to Accept…

Press Release: Pioneer Files Amicus Brief on Behalf of Plaintiffs in Boston Charter School Case

Joins with Black Alliance for Educational Options and Cheryl…

Pioneer Urges Gov. Baker to Take Bolder Action on Public Records Reform

Governor’s Office in Massachusetts is one of only a handful…

PioneerLegal Submits Amicus Brief In Pacheco-Law Case Before SJC

Pioneer Institute (Pioneer) has submitted an amicus brief supporting…

PioneerLegal Joins Amicus Brief In Takings Case Before Sixth Circuit

Pioneer Institute (Pioneer) has joined in an amicus brief in…

THIS IS ANOTHER TEST POST

/
Etiam in gravida magna. Duis ac nisl metus. Sed a porta ante. Fusce rutrum sit amet neque et sollicitudin. Aliquam erat volutpat. Nullam ornare ex ac augue mollis placerat. Cras pharetra massa sed quam sodales ornare. In elit quam, rhoncus quis nunc ut, placerat ultrices diam.

THIS IS A TEST POST

/
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Donec tellus eros, lacinia ut mi id, vehicula finibus metus. Maecenas ac vulputate quam, a volutpat enim. Suspendisse non urna ante. Quisque a dolor purus. Nulla odio eros, euismod eget vestibulum quis, malesuada quis tellus.