Janus vs AFSCME

The Facts About the Janus Case

A U.S. Supreme Court case called Janus v. AFSCME Council 31 threatens our union and all working families. This case aims to take away the freedom of working people to join together in strong unions to speak up for themselves and their communities. A decision is expected by the summer. [Read AFSCME full article]

On Friday, January 19, 2018, AAUP and NEA jointly filed an Amicus Brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Janus v. AFSCME Council 31 in support of AFSCME; the Respondents.


Related Articles:

Janus v. AFSCME Council 31


MARK JANUS
, Petitioner,
v.
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 31, ET AL., Respondents.

Monday, February 26, 2018

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 16-1466 - Oral Arguments:

  • William L. Messenger, Esq. - National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc.; on behalf of the Petitioner.
  • Gen. Noel J. Francisco - Solicitor General, Department of Justice; on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, in support of the Petitioner.
  • David L. Franklin - Solicitor General of Illinois; on behalf of the State Respondents.
  • David C. Frederick, Esq. - Washington, D.C.; on behalf of Respondent AFSCME Council 31.

Oral Argument Transcript:



A Case to Rig the System Against Working People

September 28, 2017 - The following statement was issued by members and leaders of AFSCME, AFT, NEA, and SEIU – the nation’s four largest public sector unions – in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to grant Certiorari in Janus v. AFSCME Council 31:

The Janus case is a blatantly political and well-funded plot to use the highest court in the land to further rig the economic rules against everyday working people. The billionaire CEOs and corporate interests behind this case, and the politicians who do their bidding, have teamed up to deliver yet another attack on working people by striking at the freedom to come together in strong unions. The forces behind this case know that by joining together in strong unions, working people are able to win the power and voice they need to level the economic and political playing field. However, the people behind this case simply do not believe that working people deserve the same freedoms they have: to negotiate a fair return on their work.
This case started with an overt political attempt by the billionaire governor of Illinois, Bruce Rauner, to attack public service workers through the courts. And, in a letter to supporters detailed in The Guardian, the CEO of the corporate-backed State Policy Network (SPN) reveals the true intent of a nationwide campaign of which Janus is a part: to strike a ‘mortal blow’ and ‘defund and defang’ America’s unions. The merits of the case are clear. Since 1977, Abood has effectively governed labor relations between public sector employees and employers, allowing employers and employees the freedom to determine labor policies that best serve the public. When reviewing the legal merits of this case, it is clear that this attempt to manipulate the court against working people should be rejected.

This page developed and maintained by CCRI Professional Staff Association. Send comments and suggestions to jdvota@ccri.edu.


Top
Last Updated: 7/25/18