Mark Janus, lead plaintiff in the AFSCME vs. Janus Supreme Court case, and his attorney Jacob Huebert talked about the circumstances that led to this case and the Supreme Court's ruling on the issues of public sector unions, collective bargaining and mandatory union fees.
Bloomberg News Reporter, Josh Eidelson discussed the background and issues involved in the Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court case. The court case centers around issues of public sector unions, collective bargaining and mandatory union fees. On June 27, 2018, the Supreme Court 5-4 ruled in favor of Janus saying that non-union workers cannot be forced to pay fees to public sector unions.
Stephen Mittons, a member of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) talked about the Supreme Court case Janus v. AFSCME, which concerns the collection of dues by unions.
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31 (AFSCME), a case concerning public employees and mandatory union fees. Mark Janus, a child support specialist with the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, is not a member of AFSCME, but under state law he must still pay for what is called an agency fee, or fair share fee, that goes toward addressing matters such as collective bargaining, grievances, wages, and employment conditions. Mr. Janus argued that paying these dues violates his First Amendment rights because doing so forces him to support the union’s message and politics.