Plaintiff in Illinois Union Lawsuit Hopes SCOTUS Sides With California Teacher

A California lawsuit to be argued Monday before the U.S. Supreme Court could do much of the heavy lifting for Gov. Bruce Rauner in his effort to end forced union payments from non-union members.

In Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, California teacher Rebecca Friedrichs argues that monthly "agency fees" she must pay to the CTA -- of which she chooses to not be a member -- violate her First Amendment protection against coerced speech.

It's a nearly identical argument to that of three Illinois state employees in a federal lawsuit filed in March that alleges Illinois' "fair share" fees force public employees to support speech -- in this case, political activity by unions to which they don't belong -- with which they don't agree. (Rauner was the original plaintiff but was ruled ineligible to bring the lawsuit. He has filed an amicus brief in support of Friedrichs).

Among those following the Friedrichs proceedings closely will be Mark Janus, the lead plaintiff in the Illinois case.

When Janus moved from the Illinois Department of Commerce and Community Affairs to a new job with the Department of Healthcare and Family Services in 2007, he learned that he'd be a member of AFSCME Council 31 in his new position.

Janus accepted union membership at first, but soon opted to drop out. He didn't agree with the union's political endorsements and didn't like his dues supporting them.

"At one time I was a full member, then I thought, 'Why am I doing this?'" says Janus, a child support specialist with DHFS. Janus quit the union, but has continued to pay about $700 a year in "fair share" fees ever since.

He's among roughly 6,600 state employees who work under contracts negotiated by unions but decline to be members of those unions. (There are about 46,600 state workers covered by union-negotiated collective bargaining agreements.) Their "fair share" fees cover a union's administrative cost in negotiating a contract but can't be used for political activities.

Janus and his co-plaintiffs, like Rebecca Friedrichs, contend it's not possible to separate a public employee union's administrative costs from its political activity because, in negotiating contracts with the government, it inherently engages in political activity.

In an op-ed piece published Jan. 5 in the Chicago Tribune, Janus expressed his hope that the high court sides with Rebecca Friedrichs...

Continue reading at Reboot Illinois-->

NEXT ARTICLE: Rauner, AFSCME fight over new bonus and merit raise system

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

from Chicago - The Huffington Post http://ift.tt/1OUBypF
via IFTTT