Two New Jersey teachers are challenging a state law that they called out as “un-American” during a recent television interview.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Janus v. AFSCME decision in June declared that public employees should be allowed resign their union membership and stop paying union dues whenever they choose. But union officials blocked teachers Susan G. Fischer and Jeanette Speck from doing just that.
Fischer and Speck recently filed a class action lawsuit, with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, after school district officials in the Township of Ocean refused to allow them to stop paying union membership dues.
During an interview with NJTV, a PBS affiliate based in New Jersey, Fischer clarified that she is not opposed unions. Instead, Fischer said that she and Speck filed their lawsuit out of a sense of basic fairness.
“I am not anti-union. I am a team player. I’ve been a teacher for 30 years,” Fischer explained. She later added: “You have to pay if you join and pay if you don’t join. That was so un-American to us.”
School district officials had claimed that the teachers could only stop payments and withdraw during a 10-day “window period” every year.
Foundation staff attorney William Messenger explained that this “window period” scheme was allowed under a New Jersey law. Messenger said this “basically means for 355 to 356 days of every year, public employees in New Jersey can’t exercise their Janus rights.”
The lawsuit challenges the New Jersey law as unconstitutional under Janus. The High Court said that union bosses cannot force public-sector workers to pay union membership dues and fees, since this violates the First Amendment.
The teachers are suing New Jersey Governor Phil Murphey, the New Jersey Education Association, and the Township of Ocean Education Association, seeking a refund of membership dues forcibly taken after they resigned their union membership, as well as for all other public employees who attempted to resign following Janus.
Over the Labor Day weekend, National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix spread the message of worker freedom on television programs, in radio interviews, and in newspaper columns across the country.
On C-SPAN’s Washington Journal, Mix made the moral and economic case for Right to Work laws and answered questions about the latest developments in labor law. Watch the video here:
In a column in the Washington Times, Mix discussed an upcoming case at the United States Supreme Court that builds on Foundation-won precedents in which the Court expressed skepticism about the constitutionality of public sector union officials’ forced-dues power.
The incestuous relationship between public-sector unions and politicians busts budgets and erodes democratic accountability. But without ready access to forced-dues cash, government unions’ political influence would decline dramatically. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has just agreed to hear a case that strikes at the heart of public-sector unions’ forced-dues privileges. In Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, a group of nonunion public school teachers is challenging a union policy that requires them to pay any union dues at all to keep their jobs.
Friedrichs gives the court an opportunity to outlaw all mandatory union dues in the public sector. To be clear, such a ruling wouldn’t end government unions. Employees who genuinely support a labor organization would still be free to join up and pay dues. What it would do, however, is limit government unions’ outsized political influence.
In columns in states with Right to Work laws, Mix invited workers and job creators to “celebrate the Right to Work advantage.” From the Tulsa World:
According to data compiled by the National Institute for Labor Relations Research, Right to Work states have enjoyed higher private-sector job growth and larger wage increases over the past decade than their forced-unionism counterparts. No only that, but after adjusting for states’ differing costs of living, residents in Right to Work states enjoy more disposable income than their non-Right to Work neighbors.
The connection between Right to Work laws and better economic performance shouldn’t come as much of a surprise. Business experts consistently rank the presence of Right to Work laws as one of the most important factors companies consider when deciding where to expand or relocate their facilities where they will create new jobs.
In Michigan, one of the country’s newest Right to Work states, Mix took to the pages of the Detroit News to educate autoworkers about their newfound rights:
Are you an autoworker? A member of the UAW? Are you tired of paying dues or fed up with your union’s policies? When the UAW’s contracts with the Big Three automakers expire later this month, Michigan, Indiana, and Wisconsin autoworkers will finally have the chance to decide for themselves if paying dues to UAW officials is a good use of their money.
Meanwhile, in states without Right to Work laws, Mix made the case for protecting worker freedom in newspapers including the Chicago Sun-Times:
So as you celebrate the coming three-day weekend, consider the benefits of Right to Work. Consider your unemployed neighbor that might find a job. Consider the new manufacturing plant that might open its doors. Consider what you might do with an extra $2,000 of spending power in your pocket.
Will your state be the next Right to Work state?
The Foundation relies completely on voluntary contributions from our supporters to provide free legal aid. Please chip in with a tax-deductible contribution of $10 or more today to support the Foundation’s programs.
Connecticut State Employees Win Settlement Protecting their Right to Refrain from Paying for Union Politics
Hartford, CT (July 17, 2015) – With free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, eight state employees have reached a class-wide settlement with several state officials and the Connecticut State Employee Association (CSEA)/SEIU Local 2001 union that protects their right to opt out of paying dues for union politics. The agreement covers 215 state workers and ensures that employees who resigned from the union and objected to paying dues for union politics but did not have their objections honored will receive refunds pursuant to the terms of the agreement.
In Connecticut and other states without Right to Work laws, employees can be forced to pay union dues or fees to keep their jobs. However, the Foundation-won Supreme Court precedent Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson established that nonunion civil servants are due certain procedural protections of their right to refrain from paying dues or fees for activities unrelated to workplace bargaining, such as union political activism.
Teacher Union Lawyers Threaten Sanctions in Legal Challenge to Contract that Sold Out Teachers for 10 Years of Forced Union Dues
National Right to Work Foundation staff attorney attacked for brief calling out contract to circumvent Right to Work protections for teachers in exchange for pay cuts
Taylor, Michigan (July 15, 2015) – Staff attorneys at the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation have responded to a motion for sanctions filed for the American Federation of Teachers Local 1085 union.
The motion for sanctions was filed after the National Right to Work Foundation filed an amicus curiae brief in a case involving Local 1085 in which union bosses have been found to have unlawfully rushed into a 10 year forced-dues “union security” contract with Taylor School District after they offered major concessions, including a 10% pay cut for teachers, in a separate monopoly bargaining agreement.
In December 2012, Michigan workers gained new workplace rights when Michigan passed a Right to Work law. Fearing the loss of their forced-dues funded power, Local 1085 union officials entered into a standalone 10 year compulsory unionism agreement and a separate monopoly bargaining agreement in January 2013, hoping that the forced-dues contract would fall under the “grandfather clause” of Michigan’s Right to Work law, which did not take effect until March 2013.
Golf Channel Workers Cleared for Vote on Removing Union Despite Union Boss Attempts to Block Election
IATSE union officials unsuccessfully attempted to use bureaucratic hurdles to have NLRB toss out worker’s petition to remove the union as monopoly bargaining representative
Atlanta, GA (July 8, 2015) – Workers at the Golf Channel will get to vote on whether or not to remove the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE) union as the monopoly bargaining representative for technicians who produce golf tournaments and other programming for the channel, which is part of NBCUniversal and Comcast (NASDAQ:CMCSA). With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation, Golf Channel employee John Gallagher filed a petition requesting a decertification election with the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) regional office in Atlanta, and the petition was granted on July 6 after a two day hearing demanded by union officials.
Gallagher collected the necessary number of signatures from his fellow employees, and filed the petition on June 12th. IATSE union bosses responded by demanding a hearing to try to block the vote from taking place, and asked the NLRB to dismiss the petition on technical procedural grounds. According to the union claims, Gallagher’s petition was tainted because he failed to submit a “Statement of Position form” and a “statement of procedures form” as required by the NLRB’s new convoluted “ambush” election rules that took effect in mid-April.
However, the NLRB Regional Director sided with Gallagher, and agreed that it was a technical oversight, because the union suffered no harm when it did not receive the two forms from Gallagher, but it did receive them from the Region. Thus, Gallagher’s petition was deemed valid.
On May 12, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys and the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty filed an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief defending Wisconsin’s recently-enacted Right to Work law on behalf or four Wisconsin workers. The brief was filed in response to an International Association of Machinists (IAM) union lawsuit challenging the Badger State’s recent labor reforms in Dane County Circuit Court.
However, IAM union lawyers are now asking the court not to accept the brief. Responding to this union attempt to silence the viewpoints of pro-Right to Work employees, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys and the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty have now filed another brief with the Court, this time rebutting the IAM’s attempt to keep the four Wisconsin workers from defending their Right to Work law.