Could the Unions’ Democrat Money Laundering be Ending?

An employee who is a part of a public union named Mark Janus, working at the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, decided his $45 union due was a problem because he didn’t think  he should be forced to pay union dues or fees just to be allowed to work for the State.  Besides, where was his money going?

In his court filing, Janus quoted Thomas Jefferson, who said to “compel a man to furnish contribution of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical.”

Though the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Janus’ argument, the Supreme Court agreed to hear his appeal – and this could be bad news for the unions.  Without compulsory fees, union funding would decrease drastically, and so would their ability to pass the money on to their political causes, like the Democrat Party.

“The merits of the case, and 40 years of Supreme Court precedent and sound law, are on our side,” says Lee Saunders, president of the union, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

The central question in “Janus” is this: Should the court overrule its 1977 decision Abood v. Detroit Board of Education? In “Abood,” the Supreme Court declared that schoolteachers could be required to pay fees to public unions as long as the money was spent on the costs of collective bargaining and related issues, and not on ideological causes.

There was Harris v. Quinn (2014), where the court determined that non-union employees couldn’t be forced to pay fees to labor unions, even though they received compensation from government sources that was determined through collective bargaining. The case was decided 5-4.

More on point was Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2016), which asked if a school district requiring employees to join a union or pay a fee infringed on their First Amendment rights of free speech and assembly. In other words, the court was being asked to reconsider “Abood.”

And they might have done just that, except that Associate Justice Scalia died before the case could be decided. This left the court split with four liberals and four conservatives, so they simply put out a one-line opinion that affirmed the lower court decision, leaving the question for another day.

Now, that day has come.

With Trump’s appointee, Neil Gorsuch, on the court, if Justice Kennedy rules as he has in the past, it could spell the end of compulsory union dues and membership, spreading the right-to-work rule across the country.  My only concern is that like the leftists freaking out about Trump, union thugs can be quite dangerous.

— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary