Janus v. AFSCME Archives

The “Value Add” Rationale is Clobbering the Unions

July 15, 2024July 14, 2024 Skip

When a law is necessary to keep an organization’s membership from leaving (e.g., a closed union shop that demands membership before someone can work there), it is ripe for competition. In this case, it was the same SCOTUS decision that made it possible for me NOT to have to join a union Janus v. AFSCME … Read more

DeSantis And Florida Took the Janus Decision to Its Next Logical Step

January 5, 2024January 4, 2024 Steve MacDonald

Teacher’s Unions are sinister private entities whose only concern is how much money they can make and how best to use that to impact politics at every level of government. Sure, Janus v. AFSCME was a great decision, but the war against public employee unions continues, and Ron DeSantis is leading that fight.

Notable Quote – Critical Race Theory vs Free Speech

June 7, 2021 Skip

From a loyal reader who was researching Right To Work but found something from the Janus decision that should apply to combating Critical Race Theory.

This State Takes the Janus Ruling and Free Speech Rights Seriously

September 29, 2019 Steve MacDonald

Janus vs. AFSCME made it illegal for unions to take fees without consent. Many states responded by assuming consent or the implementation of opt-out programs. Alaska has gone and done this right.

Extend worker freedom to all of New Hampshire

September 26, 2018July 28, 2018 Op-Ed

AFTER THE landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision on worker freedom, Janus v. AFSCME, New Hampshire now has the opportunity to become the first state in the Northeast to pass right-to-work legislation and expand freedom for thousands of workers.

The court found that because collective bargaining with the government affects public policy issues like pension liabilities, taxes, spending and more, it equates to lobbying and thus political speech. Public employees are now protected from having their hard-earned money automatically deducted from their paycheck and directed toward political speech they may disagree with.