Beyond Janus -What’s Next Against Compulsory Unionism
The National Right to work Legal Defense Foundation-won Janus v AFSCME case gave teachers the freedom to refrain from union membership if they chose to do so. This decision gives teacher union officials to prove their effectiveness and usefulness to teachers. If a union is beneficial to them, teachers will join. If it is not beneficial to them, no teacher should be forced to join, and that is exactly what the Janus decision does. The decision has given teacher union officials the perfect opportunity to review their practices and listen to what teachers really want. The case is also giving teachers hope who became members rather than pay an agency fee and act as a nonmember.
Of course, teacher union officials are deploring the lawsuits as “distractions” and an attempt to “defund” them.
Now the Foundation is tackling the root of all compulsory unionism, the exclusive representation issue. Madeline Will has the story in Education Week. National Right to Work Legal Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens defends teachers and liberty while American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten, like a true labor boss, threatens more labor unrest and dire predictions as the cases move forward.
. . . the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is supporting several additional lawsuits against teachers’ unions, with more expected soon.
“These suits are part of a larger, coordinated effort by the right wing do two things,” said Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, in a provided statement. “They want unions to spend the time and money to defend them so they can defund and distract us, and they want these cases to get to the Supreme Court, now that [Brett] Kavanaugh and [Neil] Gorsuch are seated, to further erode workers’ rights.”
So far, the bulk of the cases center around the question of whether teachers who were obligated to pay fees to the unions in the past should have that money repaid to them.