AFSCME recently submitted its brief on the merits of the corporate-backed U.S. Supreme Court case, Janus v. AFSCME Council 31.
More than 35 amicus, or “friend of the court” briefs, have also been submitted on behalf of AFSCME Council 31 from legal experts, economists, public employers, elected leaders, civil rights groups and religious leaders. The authors of these brief range across the political spectrum.
The court will hear oral arguments in Janus in late February.
If facts, law and precedent matter, the court should rule in favor of working people in the Janus case, just as they did in the 1977 Abood v. Detroit Board of Education decision, when they found the state and local governments’ system of ordering their labor relations to be constitutional.
Janus, like Abood, examines whether public employees should be required to pay an agency, or ‘fair share,’ fee to help cover the costs of negotiating contracts and worker representation.
While the case stems from an Illinois state employee who objected to paying the fair share fee because of his opposition to unions, this case is truly backed by well-funded sources who want to block our freedom to join together in union.
Janus v. AFSCME Council 31 is an attack on the freedoms of working people by corporate interests and the wealthy who have been rigging the rules to get ahead.
“This case is nothing more than the latest and most egregious in a long line of attacks by billionaire CEOs and corporate interests who don’t believe that working people should have the same freedoms they do,” AFSCME International President Lee Saunders said. “Working people have the facts, and 40 years of sound law are on our side. If the case is decided based on its legal merits, the freedom of working people to join together in strong unions will prevail and the Abood precedent should stand.”