Explain how your peers discussion broadened or altered your perspective.
Ask a probing question about the legal decisions.
Share an insight from having read your peers post.
Offer and support an opinion.
Validate an idea with your own experience.
Make a suggestion.
Week 6 Discussion
1 day ago
Since 1977, the decision in the Abood v. Detroit Board of Education was used to set the standard for payment of dues by both members and non-members in an environment that was considered to be an agency shop. An agency shop is a unit or department where a union is stated to be the representative of all employees, including both members and non-members (Schudroff, 2018). The Abood case examined Michigan statutes that permitted this designation. The Abood case stated that payment of fees by all receiving representation was necessary to ensure the vision of federal labor laws were being met and followed (Schudroff, 2018). However, Abood also recognized the First Amendment violation that can occur if someone is forced to make contributions of a political nature. The answer to this potential conflict in the Abood case was called a fair share fee. This fee allowed the union to calculate the cost put toward negotiating and bargaining without other unrelated expenses being figured in (Schudroff, 2018).
In 2018, the fundamental idea behind the Abood decision was called into questions when Mark Janus who worked for the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services challenged being required to pay fair share toward an organization when he opposed their policy positions (Schudroff, 2018). The Janus case called into question if workers being required to do this was actually a violation of the First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association (Schwab, 2021). Janus is a landmark case because of the national impact on unionized members working in public education, first responders, and government employees (Schwab, 2021).
I have personally been impacted by this scenario. When I first began my career with Cincinnati State which is a highly unionized college with representation from AAUP 1, AAUP 2, SEIU, and FOP which includes almost every full-time employee. As part of the early weeks of my training, I was visited by a union representative from SEIU which supports most of the administrative, non-advisor, faculty, or public safety positions on campus. At that time, they explained how union membership and the fees would work. I remember asking specifically about if I did not want to join. The representative shared that I would have to pay the fee regardless, so I might as well enjoy the benefits. There was no explanation as to why this was. This exchange took place in 2015, and now for the first time ever, I know it was related to rulings like that in Abood.
In the aftermath of the initial Janus ruling it appears that many states sought legislation to help unions access new employees (Schudroff, 2018). I feel like financial concerns can make organizations adopt questionable practices and I am concerned that if the states expand access to new hires without monitoring the practices, there could be problems that stem from this. Another potential option would be a more customized approach. For example, it would allow employees to opt into the specific services they wanted (Schudroff, 2018). I think this would most commonly be seen connected to grievance processes, mediation, and collective bargaining agreements.
While I do not always agree with the culture of unions and I was resistant to union membership, the union saved my job in 2016. When Cincinnati State severed ties with Pearson Education who my department operated under I was given the opportunity to move into another SEIU vacant position or to bump and person with less time because of the collective bargaining agreement terms that I was covered by. Because of this, I do not know if one extreme or the other would be the best approach as seen in Janus. However, I think a hybrid approach like described that allows people to choose the benefits they want would be a solid compromise. In the public sector roles impacted by Janus, there is often rapid changes than can lead to tremendous job impact and because of this, not having union protection is an intimidating thought. Each person making an educated decision seems to be the best option to me. However, in this system, the unions will lose some funding which could present a new set of problems to be addressed.
Schudroff, D. (2018, October 3). The Practical Implications of Janus v. AFSCME Council 31. https://businesslawtoday.org/2018/09/practical-implications-janus-v-afscme-council-31/.
Schwab, J. (2021, January 4). Janus v. AFSCME. Liberty Justice Center. https://libertyjusticecenter.org/cases/janus-v-afscme/.
731 words
Reply
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|