Responding to Janus, Part II

Last month, we wrote a brief summary of the SCOTUS decision of Janus v AFSCME. Since the decision, we have more time to reflect on how this right-wing court affects us as workers and as union members. With our reflections, we call for more assertive actions, especially locally, to strengthen our union in Texas.

1. The Court framed its decision as a First Amendment cause. The Court is wrong. We can address this as Texans.

The Court effectively overturned an important 1977 court decision (Abood v. Detroit Board of Education if you want to learn about that background) and argued that the First Amendment's protection of free speech prohibits public employee unions from charging a mandatory fee for the costs of representation. In Texas, we don't feel the effect of mandatory union fees for representing, but in otherwise union-friendly states, the effect of union collective bargaining is somewhat mixed in some facets and clear in others. According to The Brookings Institute (a conservative think tank), "collective bargaining rights lead to substantial increases in union presence and modest increases in wages" while "evidence on the effect of collective bargaining on public employee retirement benefits is much scarcer."

The collective bargaining act was seen as a free speech act, and Janus argued that he should not be forced to use his "speech" (union fees) though he is rewarded by the union's bargaining. However, the Court's minority dissent notes that unions do not inhibit the freedom of speech of members or non-members. While labor unions have a right to equitably represent all workers in a bargaining act, labor unions are, by law, the exclusive representatives of workers. This means that workers cannot have two labor unions representing them within the same working situation (you can imagine what a Detroit factory would look like with two working unions representing the floor, attempting to bargain with Ford; thus, the law permits only one union representing all workers). 

This singular representation is not unique to unions. We do the same in our communities where we all represent ourselves collectively in the voting machine for our taxes (note: this is ideal, of course, and we are not arguing that our voting system is either fair or equitable, especially in Texas. But let's pretend). As a taxing "collective," we cannot declare one day that as a result of differences with a government body that we should be able to avoid taxes. 

But as Bill Fletcher explains:

In the case of labor unions, they have been granted by law the right and duty to represent workers in a given economic jurisdiction—a bargaining unit. Workers in the public sector are not obligated to join the union but the compromise that was established, and been in operation for 41 years in many states that permit public sector unionism, was that those who choose not to join contribute towards representation costs. Thus, an individual worker who decides not to join the union may, nevertheless, face an issue for which they need representation. Representation costs money. A case may go to arbitration, for instance, which can be very expensive. There may be issues that have to be litigated in court. Indeed, an issue may need to go to a legislative body. These steps can be very expensive. The Supreme Court majority knows this and, essentially, what they said today is that they do not give a damn.

As Texans, we can address this easily:

1. Explain to your colleagues that this was not about free speech. This is about how collective bargaining helps all workers. 
2. Learn about collective bargaining and have a conversation with your local Texas legislator and senator. Yes, most of our legislative representatives are anti-labor, but our silence only encourages demagogues like Abbot and Patrick .
3. Look at immediate history. The massive teacher strikes this year in West Virginia, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Arizona, Colorado and North Carolina have all taken place in “right to work” states like Texas, and this common fact was likely no coincidence. Workers in “right to work” states tend to have lower salaries and fewer benefits. Remind your local legislator.

2. Let's See a Perspective of the Impact -- Public Sector Unions

The court's decision certainly continues a national trend towards attacking labor-sector unions, such as in Illinois and Wisconsin, where since 2010, union membership declined 38 percent after the attacks on unions by Gov Walker and the Legislature (for a good resource of current news on labor issues such as happening in Wisconsin, see LaborNotes.org). Yet, the international union movement is larger than public-sector, while our national (and state) hostility toward labor-sector union has been part of our lives for decades. Moshe Marvit summarizes this:

the Janus decision will only directly impact less than half of the labor movement. This is because the ruling only applies to public-sector workers: federal, state and local government employees. However, federal employees (including postal employees) have long been under so-called “right to work,” so Janus will have minimal direct impact on them.

So, as Texans, we can address this:

1. Be proactively engaged as a union. More than paying dues, be verbal, physical present. Specifically,
2. Be present for Board of Trustees meetings: start at least once a year and remind the Board that you are a union member
3. Meet your local legislative representative. Local has power while federal representatives are weak. Write your Texas legislator and senator and remind them how our union protects us as employees and strengthens us as citizens. Let them know that our union is very alive
4. Inform other college employees about our union's efforts. Recruit other members to be paying union members.

3. On the other Hand, Understand that Some Populations will be Harder than Others ... Read: than Whites. Duh.

As Miles Kampf-Lassin argues, national public-sector unions disproportionately empower Black women, "this class of hyper-exploited workers is poised to be hit hardest by the anti-union ruling."

Source: Economic Policy Institute

While public-sector labor has facilitated Black women moving into the middle class, the ugly truth is that, on average, African-American women have to work seven months longer to receive the same pay as white men. The Janus decision further exacerbates that economic disparity. This discussion of color, unions, and education needs to be discussed elsewhere.

Here, we recommend:

1. We need to hear more voices of Black women and men, Latinx women and men, and all disenfranchised workers in the college. Their stories often stun us. Our union chapter is open to all, but we see too many white voices and representation, which makes it especially important to listen. 
2. We very pointedly want to understand real racial equity in the college at every corner: administration, faculty, and staff. For example, we call for a Freedom of Information Act request for hiring status, hiring persistence, and salary at LSCS. Though some tools show salaries for University of Houston and Houston Community College, no open data are available for LSCS.
3. Trust Black Women.

4. Remember Who Represents Who: Texas Senator Ted Cruz

The Liberty Justice Center, one of the parties that represented Janus in court, received $800,000 from a policy institute funded by Richard Uihlein, an anti-union megadonor, according to tax forms reviewed by OpenSecrets. Uihlein is an Illinois businessman who has spent millions of dollars supporting Republican candidates such as Sen.Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

This is not a surprise, but as Texans, we have a responsibility to 

1. Inform (repeatedly) Senator Cruz how his poise against workers affects us, and
2. Connect with other Houstonians resisting Senator Cruz's agenda against people of color, migrants, workers, and everything that AFT stands for.

Postscript: As of 20 July, Mark Janus has left from his public-service position ... to work for the Liberty Justice Center, making even more money.

“Once again it’s clear that this court case was never about Mark Janus, but about billionaires like Bruce Rauner and big-money corporate funders launching a political attack on the freedom of working people to speak up together through a strong union,” AFSCME Council 31 spokesman Anders Lindall said. “While IPI tries to dupe workers into quitting their union, AFSCME members will continue doing what they’ve always done: providing important public services and building their union to speak up for themselves, their families and communities.”

Additional Reading

Compa, L. (2014). "An Overview of Collective Bargaining in the United States." Digital Commons.

Semuels, A. (2018). "Is This the End of Public-Sector Unions in America?" The Atlantic. 

Tang, A. (2018). "Life After Janus." [see whole 81-page PDF]