Subscribe for 33¢ / day

The wait for a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on public employee unions will go on even longer.

The court issued opinions in two more cases Monday, but Janus vs. AFSCME was not among them. More opinions are expected on Tuesday and possibly one other day this week, which is the final week of the Supreme Court's current term.

The case is named after Mark Janus, a child support specialist for the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services. The job is a union position under the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

Janus is not a member of the union, but is required to pay "fair share" dues which are less than a union member pays. The dues are meant to offset the cost of the union negotiating labor contracts and undertaking other activities that benefit members.

In 1977, the Supreme Court ruled that it was acceptable to charge fair share dues, but the money could not be used for political purposes, like supporting candidates for office. Janus, though, is arguing that even fair share dues violate his free speech rights because he disagrees with many positions taken by AFSCME and that everything the public employee union does is inherently political.

AFSCME disputes that argument and says that Janus is free to express disagreement with the union. AFSCME also notes that the union is required by law to represent workers in union positions, even if they choose not to belong to the union.

Rauner on Monday was in Washington, D.C., where the Supreme Court is announcing its decisions this week. While in town he appeared on Fox Business to talk about Illinois' financial problems.

0
0
0
0
0

Load comments