SCOTUS Janus decision was important: Teacher’s unions must now earn their dues from teachers, This will change the political landscape

My old astronomy professor, a physicist from Serbia who fought the Nazis and suffered through communism, said that when teachers unionized in this country they became labor and in so doing collectively decided not to be “professionals.” In many respects he is correct, but the Supreme Court just dealt a serious blow to teachers as “labor.”

No longer can unions just extract dues from teachers against their will. These unions will have to EARN the dues they take from teachers. And the unions hate that they will have to earn their keep from their members. Which is pretty nuts if one thinks about it.

(From The Daily Caller)

The Janus v. AFSCME 31 case dealt with Mark Janus, an Illinois state worker, arguing that the state violated his First Amendment rights by making him pay agency fees to a union because he did not want to join it. Janus believed paying agency fees forced him to speak through the union.

“This is a fundamental defeat for unions. There’s no sugar-coating it; this is a huge defeat,” Nat Malkus, deputy director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, told The Daily Caller.

Public unions particularly are crony organizations. They work to expand the burden on taxpayers for the benefit of their organizations. They do this often by extracting dues by force (at least they did) which are then diverted toward politicians who in turn support the expansion of government and unions. The taxpayer of course is looked at as the enemy, not the employer.

Politically, teacher unions will not be able to support the Democratic Party as much with its revenue stream loss. Teacher unions have a history of shifting its focus once a state does not require agency fees. For example, in right-to-work states from 1980 to 2016 teacher unions shifted its focus to keeping and recruiting members.

“They’ll be smaller. … There are questions about whether their political identity will soften,” Malkus said. “One the one hand, they could seek to build a bigger tent with weaker ties to remote political positions and try to make a clear value propositions to members by focusing on local issues. I think that would be good. I think that would serve members better.”

Click here for the article.