MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Unions Could Lose 726,000 Members if Mark Janus Wins His Supreme Court Case

Union-backed report finds unions could be screwed.

Jeff Malet Photography/NewscomJeff Malet Photography/NewscomIf public sector workers were given the choice to stop paying union dues, many would do so, according to a new report from a union-backed think tank.

The Illinois Economic Policy Institute estimates that 726,000 workers would choose to stop paying dues if they had that choice, which public sector workers in many states currently do not. That could change after the U.S. Supreme Court announces a ruling—likely to come next month—in the much watched Janus v. AFSCME case. The plaintiff in that case, Mark Janus, has asked the court to release him from paying mandatory "fair share fees" to a union that represents him even though he has not joined it.

With the current composition of the high court, unions are bracing for a decision that would potentially cut off lucrative revenue streams. A ruling in Janus' favor could require unions to do what all other non-government entities already have to do: convince people to voluntarily support their activities.

The loss of union members and their dues could be particularly challenging in blue states, according to the IEPI report. Public sector union membership would decrease by an estimated 189,000 members in California, 136,000 members in New York, and 49,000 members in Illinois.

The report goes on to claim that giving workers the freedom to not support a union will harm wages and consumer spending, but other studies have indicated that right-to-work states—states where workers are already free to choose whether they support a union or not—have stronger economic indicators. It's fair to assume that a major shift in labor policy will create some upheaval, but the only unambiguous losers, if Janus wins, would be the labor unions that would be decoupled from their automatic gravy trains.

The unions are trying to protect a precedent set by the Supreme Court in 1977. That case, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, upheld mandatory union fees on the grounds that non-payers would become "free riders" who could benefit from collective bargaining activities without contributing towards the associated costs.

When the Janus case was argued in front of the Supreme Court in February, the justices seemed pretty skeptical of the unions' argument, as Reason's Damon Root noted at the time: "The union's position, [Justice Anthony] Kennedy told [Illinois Solicitor General David] Frederick, involved 'mandat[ing] people that object to certain union policies to pay for the implementation of those policies against their First Amendment interests.' In other words, Kennedy seemed to suggest the mandatory fees at issue here are unconstitutional."

The IEPI report certainly won't sway the Supreme Court's opinion. It's more of a red flag for unions around the country, which may need to change tactics in the wake of Janus victory.

"A Janus decision against fair share fees would be the largest change to collective bargaining rights in the United States in decades," the report authors write. "The response to Janus will be critical to the long-run survival of the U.S. labor movement and the American middle class."

That squares with what Ben Johnson, a former head of the Vermont chapter of the American Federation of Teachers, told me in February, shortly before the case went to oral argument. He believes public sector unions actually have been hurt by Abood. He recalled a poll that was commissioned by AFT during him time as a union official, with the goal of determining why non-members had not joined the union. The most common answer? Because no one had asked them.

"The agency fee is such a core model of the business model of unions that you don't even have to bother asking people to join up," Johnson told Reason. "These are membership-based organizations, for a hundred years they lived or died by membership, and they don't even bother to ask people to join."

Losing at the Supreme Court—and losing automatic dues payments—would force unions to change how they operate. Do nothing, and they face the prospect of losing members by the thousands. The Janus case won't be the end of the American labor movement, but the loss of all those dues-paying members might force unions to concentrate on giving workers an actual reason to sign up.

Listen to a conversation between Reason's Nick Gillespie and Mark Janus below.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...but the only unambiguous losers, if Janus wins, would be the labor unions that would be decoupled from their automatic gravy trains.

    And the political party to which they donate campaign funds, whatever party that might be.

  • mpercy||

    Rank Organization (Total Contributions) Pct to Dems & Liberals vs Pct to Repubs & Conservs
    1 Service Employees International Union ($278,464,457) 99.5% to 0.5%
    2 Fahr LLC ($181,625,714) 100.0% to 0.0%
    3 National Education Assn ($124,498,149) 97.0% to 3.0%
    4 American Federation of State/Cnty/Munic Employees ($115,030,372) 99.4% to 0.6%
    5 Las Vegas Sands ($113,861,708) 0.1% to 99.9%
    6 American Federation of Teachers ($113,409,485) 99.7% to 0.3%
    7 Carpenters & Joiners Union ($112,332,359) 95.6% to 4.4%
    8 Renaissance Technologies ($108,320,374) 57.6% to 42.4%
    9 Laborers Union ($100,547,985) 95.8% to 4.2%
    10 National Assn of Realtors ($87,675,625) 48.1% to 51.9%

  • LarryA||

    Wait, that can't be true. I have it on Good Authority that it's the NRA who was buying all the Congress critters.
    [/sarc]

  • Morbo||

    Last I checked, NRA wasn't even in the top 100.

  • Richard Graham||

    It's no surprise to see SEIU at the top of that list, and I would encourage anyone looking for proof of this fact to simply go to their Facebook site and scan through the past 5-years worth of mostly political posts... it's time for Forced Unionism in the public sector to be outlawed on the national level.

  • VinniUSMC||

    I'm surprised that more than 0 of them are 95%+ Democrat sponsors. More than that, it's 3! I'm quite amazed. And two of them are nearly even splits. Wow.

  • esteve7||

    If all Unions were so great, it wouldn't be mandatory. That's the same logic used by the left with Obamacare ---- not forcing people to buy it will cause millions of uninsured people!

    Oh, you mean those people who don't want it and won't buy it if they are not forced to?

    Ideas so great they have to be mandatory...

  • VinniUSMC||

    This.

    This is really the only thing that needs to be said.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Automatic Gravy Train was my nickname in college.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Because of the loose brown trail you left behind you as you walked?

  • Citizen X - #6||

    I've said too much already.

  • Hugh Akston||

    That's a coincidence, my nickname in college was Unambiguous Loser.

  • MollyGodiva||

    People forget that unions did not form for no reason. Workers unionize because the working conditions were very poor, they were underpaid, and even possibly subjected to dangerous jobs without safety considerations. Happy workers don't normally unionize. But those union drives happened decades ago and the workers who don't want to pay their dues know they will still get the benefit of the contract without any cost. So of course they want to be free riders. Those same workers to don't want to pay will be quite unhappy once they kill the union and they find their pay, benefits and working conditions slide back to pre-union days.

  • lafe.long||

    Those same workers to don't want to pay will be quite unhappy once they kill the union and they find their pay, benefits and working conditions slide back to pre-union days.

  • lafe.long||

    Sounds exactly like all the pro net-neutrality jibber-jabber.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    And then Unions will spring up through free association once more.

    It is always a mistake to look for a structure for society that will always solve all the problems. Ain't gonna happen. Even what was a great structure a decade ago may be daft now. And may be the best likely answer in another decade.

    Social structures tend to calcify over time. They need to be shaken up periodically, not so much because they are intrinsically bad but because something needs to be done to break out of the crust and shake off the silt.

  • ThomasD||

    It is human nature that we begin to take things for granted. Voluntary systems that persist do so because feedback tends to be of an immediate nature.

    But the thing the unions fear most is a 'what have you done for me lately' attitude from the workers.

    If they wanted to deal with that sort of thing they would have gotten real jobs.

  • DaveSs||

    Other reasons why people 'joined' the unions. Intimidation

    From good old fashioned thuggery:
    How are you going to support your family if your legs are broken.
    Nice home you got there. Shame if anything would happen to it.
    Nice family you got there. Shame if anything would happen to them.

    To 'legal' means of intimidation (which when it comes right down to it is not really that much different than good old fashioned thuggery)
    The workplace is now a Union shop. Whether or not you supported the forming, you must join the Union or be fired.

  • BYODB||

    And don't forget bombings. The unions did love their bombings.

  • dchang0||

    Yet another reason to support the 2nd Amendment.

  • MarkLastname||

    Unions only drive up wages at the expense of employment. Compensation, absent union interfere cr, merely tracks productivity, which is optimal. Moreover, even within unions, workers who are more productive than average suffer lower pay than they'd otherwise get.

    That's what this is really about. Less productive workers want to force more productive workers into their labor cartel to allow them to bid up their own wages above their productivity, at the expense of the more productive workers, the consumers, and employers.

  • Microaggressor||

    One of the effects of punishing the most productive workers is that you get fewer productive workers. Incentives matter. Even Communist China figured this one out, which is why they give their teachers a merit-based salary.

    Unions lower the productive output of their industry, making the products more expensive to consumers. Those consumers are workers too, or family supported by workers. This is the blind spot of the labor movement; it prevents them from understanding that their policy preference literally hurts workers.

  • Jordan||

    Those same workers to don't want to pay will be quite unhappy once they kill the union and they find their pay, benefits and working conditions slide back to pre-union days.

    At which point, they'll be free to try and convince their coworkers to form a union that they can all agree on.

  • Sevo||

    MollyGodiva|5.10.18 @ 11:53AM|#
    "People forget that unions did not form for no reason. Workers unionize because the working conditions were very poor, they were underpaid, and even possibly subjected to dangerous jobs without safety considerations."

    Possibly, but I encourage you to read "Meet You in Hell", Les Standiford (who is nobody's 'capitalist tool'), chapters 11 through 18
    Briefly, the proverbial Homestead Steel strike was called by the skilled workers and 'enforced' on the laborers, the supposed Pinkerton 'attack' was actually the union thugs attacking the Pinkertons, and it took the National Guard to keep the thugs from killing more and tearing the factory down.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Unions formed to protect the existing jobs of northern whites in the face of the influx of black labor from the south and 'foreign labor' from overseas.
    Much like minimum wage laws.

  • BYODB||

    Now, apply these lessons to modern immigration policy. Gee, what might be a stumbling block on the way open borders? Surely not minimum wage laws and unions. That would be crazy, since they're both overwhelmingly Democrat, right?

  • Microaggressor||

    Politicking for Democrats doesn't benefit workers. It may result in higher budgets for the public sector, but this comes at a direct cost to the private sector. Unions are convinced they are the vanguard of the middle class but all they end up doing is raise the cost of living for the working proles, equivalent to a lowering of real wages.

  • The Last American Hero||

    And yet the unions absolutely oppose allowing workers to opt out of the union and negotiate their own employment terms with their employer, thus ending the freerider problem. Funny that.

  • jerbigge||

    If the employer can get non-union workers for less than is being paid to union workers, why have union workers? Over a period of time, the union workers are a smaller part of the employer's labor force until the employer confident he can operate without the union, decides to get rid of the union. Even if there is strike, there are enough non-union workers along with "scabs" to continue operations.

  • Griffin3||

    If working conditions decline, then people will WANT to pay into/form unions again. If working conditions stay the same, the workers will be happy will more take-home pay.

    Why no let these workers decide based on their own circumstances, rather than you decide for them, based on your factless prediction of what their future working conditions will be?

  • Sometimes a Great Notion||

    Tell me about the unsafe working conditions at PUBLIC SECTOR unions offices? We aren't talking about a PRIVATE SECTOR union worker on the 100th floor of a skyscraper welding on an open platform.

    Not that I am for private sector unions myself but they do have the right to form and negotiate a contract with the employer which could include mandatory union dues for all employees. Public sector though falls under 1st Amendment and the government can never negotiate your rights away.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Workers unionize because the working conditions were very poor, they were underpaid, and even possibly subjected to dangerous jobs without safety considerations.

    And those conditions mostly existed before things like minimum wage laws, OSHA regulations, and child labor laws, etc. You'd know that if you weren't a complete moron. Or maybe you do know that and you're just here to shill for unions. No one's buying your bullshit.

  • Rossami||

    re: "slide back to pre-union days"

    Odd how that hasn't happened in any of the right-to-work states that already have this rule in effect. It's almost as if workers are adults with free will and the choice of where to work.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Union advocates forget that you don't need everybody unionized to get 90% of the benefits of unions. You just need enough people unionized for it to be a plausible threat.

    Kind of like nuclear weapons, unions are valued for the deterrence effect of threatening one. If you actually have to use them, most people lose.

  • BlueStarDragon||

    You also left out to stop runaway slaves from the south, immigrants getting jobs, and automation etc. from competing with them as well. Early unions where very raciest and even sexist as late as the eighties. But mainly the first job of unions and guilds are the keep labor cost high by destroying, intimidating or stopping competition and improving way of doing things. In the early days of American unions they would go on strike if a black man would get promoted over a white man as well. But you left all those thing out.

  • lafe.long||

    I worked part time for UPS during xmas season one year. I certainly wasn't asked or told before I took the job... but the Teamsters definitely took their cut.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    So did you ever have anyone knee-capped?

  • Colossal Douchebag||

    He got a coupon good for one free knee-capping.

  • Kristian H.||

    I am actually hopeful that kicking the bums (Public Employee Unions) off the basement couch may actually help workers by getting the unions to improve their performance as an (so crazy it just might work) effort to maintain or increase membership.

    I expect to be disappointed, but a guy can hope.

  • Microaggressor||

    People will pay for a service they think is worth it. Mandatory dues just gives unions a license to do whatever the fuck they want with your money. They can keep saying it's for the benefit of the worker, but that doesn't make it true.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Public employee unions should be outlawed. The relationship between an employee and a private employer is fundamentally different from the relationship of a public employee to the government. Private employers can't pay you with other people's money; they can't create jobs by fiat; they can't force people to buy their product or service; they can't authorize their employees to kill you. These differences and more make it inappropriate and dangerous for public employees to be able to bargain and contract with the government the way that private employees do.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Even FDR knew that. His opposition to public sector unions needs to get more attention, given who we're arguing against.

  • Tony||

    Why shouldn't public employees have freedom of assembly?

  • Vernon Depner||

    They should be free to assemble all they like. Governments should be prohibited, though, from negotiating or contracting with them collectively.

  • Tony||

    Why?

  • Sevo||

    "Why?"

    Because the unions are contributors to the campaign funds for the people sitting across the table; even a caveman can see the conflict of interest there, so just consider it a while. Maybe you can too.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    even a caveman can see the conflict of interest there, so just consider it a while. Maybe you can too.

    I wouldn't bet on it.

  • Tony||

    Can we do away with corporate political donations too then? It's only fair. And it's the same kind of conflict.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|5.10.18 @ 2:52PM|#
    "Can we do away with corporate political donations too then? It's only fair. And it's the same kind of conflict."

    As soon as the government is forced by law to negotiate with one source, you bet.
    You fucking ignoramus.

  • BYODB||

    You're aware a Corporation can not donate to a politician directly, right? So why can a Union?

  • Vernon Depner||

    See above.

  • mpercy||

    "The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

    All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters."

  • mpercy||

    "Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable."

  • Rossami||

    It's a good quote. It's even stronger when you sourced it.

  • jerbigge||

    All good truths as to why government worker unions are a really bad idea. The government has no incentive to resist the demands of its unionized workers since it can always pass the cost on to the general public in the form of higher taxes. One reason the school teachers are so unhappy today is because the voters simply refuse to pass the added millage. The voters are effectively saying, "You aren't doing that great a job, so why should we pay you more...?

  • Longtobefree||

    - - upheld mandatory union fees on the grounds that non-payers would become "free riders" who could benefit from collective bargaining activities without contributing towards the associated costs - -

    Even in 1977 this was bullshit. Any company large enough to attract union organizers is large enough to have a payroll system that can distinguish between union members and the free employees. The company is able to provide the union benefits only to those employees who are members, and to negotiate freely with non-union members a different contract. Pay them more or pay them less, no problem for a computer.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Oddly enough, the "free riders" are the low-productivity union members that don't want to compete for work.

  • Mickey Rat||

    The unions do not want to give up their monopolies on labor, so they complain about "free riders".

  • LarryA||

    Pay them more or pay them less, no problem for a computer.

    Today, true. Not so much in 1977, before there were either modern computers or HR departments to run them.

  • markm23||

    Computers were pretty capable in 1977, but you don't need computers to pay individual wage rates. It just takes more clerks with quill pens and abaci.

  • μ Aggressor||

    The IEPI report certainly won't sway the Supreme Court's opinion.


    I think a penaltax might disagree with that necessarily certain conclusion

  • Microaggressor||

    This time we have Gorsuch, who single handedly makes Trump's election worthwhile.

    By the way, I don't have a mustache, so you must be the evil twin.

  • Tony||

    You're a billionaire? Or a fetus? Otherwise, why are you so excited?

  • Sevo||

    "You're a billionaire? Or a fetus? Otherwise, why are you so excited?"

    You're a commie? Or a retard? Why are you so sad?

  • Microaggressor||

    I'm a worker and consumer who likes living above the poverty level. That's specifically why I oppose the labor movement. Go back to your alternate reality bubble.

  • Tony||

    That's great except for every piece of evidence in existence that the labor movement created the middle class that Reaganomics came along to destroy.

  • Shirley Knott||

    What evidence?
    Your ignorance of history is appalling.
    Look at Great Britain from, say, 1750 to 1850.
    No middle class, then a large and growing middle class.
    No unions.

  • Sevo||

    "That's great except for every piece of evidence in existence that the labor movement created the middle class that Reaganomics came along to destroy."

    I used to think you were bright enough to understand a simple premise:
    "An assertion is not an argument".
    I see I was mistaken; that bit of knowledge is beyond your ken, so not only do you continue to post assertions as if they were self-evident, you post assertions which are blatant lies.
    Are you posting here to show how stupid you can be and still poke at a keyboard?

  • BYODB||

    Were you even alive when Reagan was in office? I'm guessing not, or if you were you were in diapers.

  • soldiermedic76||

    No, the industrial revolution created the middle class, unions formed after the industrial revolution. However, middle class have existed for ages, the just were labeled differently. In the middle ages they were referred to as yeoman, skilled artisans who were richer than the peasantry, but not as rich or powerful as the royalty.

  • tommhan||

    Reagan lowered our taxes and the economy was booming so the middle class was doing great. I lived through that time and it was great.

  • Tony||

    Pretty soon the existence of a middle class will depend entirely on the kindness of CEOs. Except they are not tasked with being kind to workers, they're tasked with making money. And all of you are going to act surprised.

    If it makes you feel better, Republicans' decades-long assault on unions is not directly a sociopathic desire to make most people poor, but simply to exterminate the one coordinated effort that helps Democrats in elections.

  • Sevo||

    "Pretty soon the existence of a middle class will depend entirely on the kindness of CEOs"

    Maybe one day you'll post something that isn't mendacious.

  • The Last American Hero||

    What's the problem with that? Your ilk eagerly awaits the destruction of the bourgeoisie.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Fuck off. The existence of a middle class has always depended on the economic value of the labor they provide. When your skills can be provided by multitude of others (or by robots), your economic future is doomed. Unless, of course, you can rely on government goons to enforce higher pay--at least for a little while.

  • Microaggressor||

    Tony is so ignorant, he doesn't understand what happens when employers compete with each other for skilled workers. The labor movement in a nutshell.

  • Dizzle||

    Recruiters are only people hated by code pink in his mind.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Pretty soon the existence of a middle class will depend entirely on the kindness of CEOs.

    There are thousands of middle class workers, myself included, who are not union members and never have been. I guess someone should tell the CEO of the company I work for that they're doing it all wrong. Apparently they're supposed to pay me next to nothing, and no medical, vision, dental, 401k or other benefits.

    Christ, you're a fucking moron. Every time I think I've seen you post the dumbest thing humanly possible you go and one up yourself.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    The Democrat Party would not exist if not for class warfare. They have to perpetuate that myth for as long as possible, or they risk losing their blue collar base. Contrary to popular belief, there aren't enough ideological progressives to carry them at the ballot box. They need the union vote, and they certainly can't get that by campaigning on gun control, climate change, etc. Without unions pushing for members to elect Democrats, the party will struggle to maintain relevance at the national level.

  • Tony||

    You have Stockholm Syndrome. They figured out that new generations don't have memory of how their parents lived on a normal income. And they figured out that as long as they're not actually starving us, we're gonna do their bidding and make our pitiful paychecks.

    They even have people like you to thank them for it.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Strategies to Deal with a Victim Mentality

    Seek help, Tony. We're all pulling for you.

  • General_Tso||

    Speak for yourself. I'm not pulling for him.

  • General_Tso||

    Speak for yourself. I'm not pulling for him.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|5.10.18 @ 2:59PM|#
    "You have Stockholm Syndrome...."

    This lying piece of shit has yet to understand that imbecilic assertions are not arguments.
    When did you stop dealing with logic, retard?

  • Cynical Asshole||

    A $92,000/ year income + medical, dental, vision, and 401 = Stockholm syndrome... OK, whatever. You're literally too stupid to remember to breathe without constantly reminding yourself aren't you.

  • Shirley Knott||

    It has been suggested that he moves his lips when looking at pictures.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Except our standard of living by just about every matrix is far superior to our parents. Our purchasing power is also far greater then our parents as well.

  • ||

    Tony in a dumbshell: blames lowering of living standards, doesn't realize it is inflation coupled with the bevy of taxes placed on every interaction/implied interaction you do, that has lowered standards of Americans since the beginning of the 20th century.
    Remove head from ass then think.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Once again you show your ignorance of history. Unions had nothing to do with the growth of the middle class, the fastest expansion of the middle class occured during the 19th century as a result of industrialization and the enlightenment. However, the middle class has existed for most of history, they were not the dominant class (population wise) though, that was generally the peasantry throughout history. The industrial revolution helped lift a number of rural peasants into the expanding middle class. Interestingly enough the plague had a similar impact. The loss of royalty allowed many of the wealthier yeoman (middle class) to move into that vacuum, and the death of skilled artisan yeoman created an opportunity for the peasantry to improve their lots in life.

  • soldiermedic76||

    I would also point out that the loss of life during the plague helped to break the stranglehold of the guilds which had been one of the forces that kept the peasantry from moving up. This is especially true in the states where serfdom was not widely practiced, i.e. the English Isles, Scandinavia, the Low Countries and to a lesser extent, the Germanic principalities.

  • ace_m82||

    ^See proof Tony doesn't understand Supply and Demand (or can't fathom what a "labor market" is).

  • BYODB||

    LOL, a self avowed socialist that claims to be concerned for the middle class.

    This is the most amusing thing I'll read today, by far.

    Socialists only appreciate the middle class for the amount of loot they can steal from them.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Yes, I have read Marx (to better understand him) and he despised the middle class, especially the upper middle class. He wanted to completely destroy their way of life.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Now, now, the trendline doesn't look that bad. No different today than 10 years ago.

    http://news.gallup.com/poll/15.....class.aspx

  • Karen24||

    If the unions lose this case, expect a lot more strikes. The last year has taught us that the best way to get members is to protest as loud and as long as we can. We have nothing left to lose; why not go down making all the trouble possible?

  • Sevo||

    "We have nothing left to lose; why not go down making all the trouble possible?"
    Fuck off, slaver.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    why not go down making all the trouble possible?

    Sounds like a threat. Ooh, I'm so scared. Fuck off.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    We have nothing left to lose; why not go down making all the trouble possible?

    Ask the miners at Ludlow how that worked out.

  • BYODB||


    We have nothing left to lose; why not go down making all the trouble possible?

    So that, I don't know, you stay employed? Just a thought, though. Welcome to the world most of America has already lived in for 20-50 years?

  • DesigNate||

    What a despicable thing to say.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    "The response to Janus will be critical to the long-run survival of the U.S. labor movement and the American middle class."

    Fixed. Unions have fat little anymore to do with the survival of the American middle class (if they ever did). There's plenty of people in the middle class who aren't unionized workers.

    "The agency fee is such a core model of the business model of unions that you don't even have to bother asking people to join up," Johnson told Reason. "These are membership-based organizations, for a hundred years they lived or died by membership, and they don't even bother to ask people to join."

    They don't want you to join, they just want your money.

  • aistamn||

    They are like gyms, they want everybody to join and then never show up to use the facilities.

  • BYODB||


    "A Janus decision against fair share fees would be the largest change to collective bargaining rights in the United States in decades," the report authors write. "The response to Janus will be critical to the long-run survival of the U.S. labor movement and the American middle class."


    Cue the laugh track.

  • ace_m82||

  • PaulTheBeav||

    These unions are like organized crime. You cannot opt out even if you are allowed to because they will make your life a living hell if you try.

  • Vernon Depner||

    What do you mean, "like"? They're a branch of organized crime.

  • geo||

    The unions don't want to mention that "being allowed to join the union" is often the way they have prevented competition in the job market, forcing many workers to move to other states to find work or to take lower paying unskilled jobs in areas where the unions dominate the primary job market. Now they want to pretend that they would let anyone join the union if only they pay the dues. That is simply not true. It is still an exclusive club of cronyism. Let them be crushed.

  • JBrendel||

    I've been a victim of unions off and on for decades. I hope SCOTUS makes the right decision on this and drives the nail into the communist-union's coffin.

  • Richard Graham||

    Even though Mark Janus has his name on this historic lawsuit, no matter how the Justices decide, millions of public servants will be impacted. Although I believe workers deserve to keep their right to voluntarily join together and bargain with an employer, nobody should IMO be forced to financially support an organization against his/her will and as a condition of employment. That just seems 100% un-American and I hope we can finally get it outlawed on the national level.

  • Liberty Lover||

    If you don't want to pay union dues, don't apply for union jobs. Seems pretty simple. Of course people do, they want the benefits of the union as long as other pay for them, because they are cheap and want something for free.

  • ||

    You wouldn't have the coverage of said union, but you can still work the job. That's the whole point.

  • ||

    Unfortunately, it should have been public unions that were destroyed with GATT and NAFTA, not most of the private ones.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Gilbert Shelton's "Give Me Liberty" comic showed Ebeneezer the town drunk commenting with a grin on the British burning down the church at Concord: "That's a shame..."
    So, Goonion collectivists can no longer rob workers at gunpoint? That's a shame...

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online