Press Release

Contact: Lisa Gates, Vice President of Comms (614) 224-3255 or Lisa@BuckeyeInstitute.org FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE     January 2, 2020 The Buckeye Institute Files Additional Post-Janus  Labor Challenge with U.S. Supreme Court Reisman v. AFUM Appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States   Columbus, OH -- The Buckeye Institute, which filed the first significant post-Janus First Amendment labor-law challenge in the Supreme Court of the United States, on Thursday announced its filing of an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in Reisman v. Associated Faculties of the University of Maine (AFUM). The Buckeye Institute represents Professor Reisman, and has repeatedly called for an end to laws that force public-sector employees like him to accept compelled union representation -- particularly when the person is not a member of said union.   "Professor Reisman is a hardworking public employee who has for many years been forced to associate with a union with which he disagrees and suffer it to speak for him," said Robert Alt, president and chief executive officer of The Buckeye Institute and a lead attorney on the case. "If state law cannot compel public employees to financially support union advocacy -- as the court ruled in Janus v. AFSCME -- how can states require these same public employees to accept representation from unions that many of them have chosen not to join? These are serious questions about the constitutionality of exclusive representation -- questions which the U.S. Supreme Court needs to address."   "Despite resigning his union membership, Professor Reisman is required by Maine law be represented by a union with which he does not agree and of which he is not a member," said Andrew M. Grossman, a partner at BakerHostetler in Washington, D.C., and counsel of record on the Reisman v. AFUM petition. "Following the Court's landmark Janus ruling, it is clear that these laws are unconstitutional, and we hope the Court will recognize them as such."   Background on The Buckeye Institute's Legal Cases and Plaintiffs: The Buckeye Institute was the first organization in the country to file lawsuits calling on courts to end compelled exclusive representation following the Janus ruling, and the organization is representing Professor Jonathan Reisman in Maine, Professor Kathy Uradnik in Minnesota, and Jade Thompson in Ohio.   Jonathan Reisman (watch a video of him telling his own story below and read his opinion piece in the Portland Press Herald), is an associate professor of economics and public policy at the University of Maine at Machias who served as the AFUM grievance officer for the Machias campus. Professor Reisman would have liked to remain a member of his local union, but if he did so, he would be forced to also support the respective state and national unions with which AFUM affiliates -- the Maine Education Association and the National Education Association -- unions which oppose his views on a wide range of political and public policy issues. As a result, he resigned his union membership. However, under Maine law, Reisman had no alternative but to continue to accept AFUM's representation.   # # #   Founded in 1989, The Buckeye Institute is an independent research and educational institution -- a think tank -- whose mission is to advance free-market public policy in the states. The Buckeye Institute is a non-partisan, non-profit, and tax-exempt organization, as defined by section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. As such, it relies on support from individuals, corporations, and foundations that share a commitment to individual liberty, free enterprise, personal responsibility, and limited government. The Buckeye Institute does not seek or accept government funding. Support The Buckeye Institute by setting us as your designated charity through AmazonSmile. Every time you make a purchase, Amazon will donate 0.5% of the total to The Buckeye Institute at no extra cost to you! AmazonSmile and the AmazonSmile logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.

In Amicus Brief, The Buckeye Institute Once Again Calls on U.S. Supreme Court to Protect First Amendment Rights of Government Contractors

Jul 16, 2019 @ The Buckeye Institute

Columbus, OH – After filing the first post-Janus First Amendment labor law challenge in the United States Supreme Court, The Buckeye Institute filed an amicus brief in support of a related challenge, Miller v. Inslee, that calls on the U.S. Supreme Court to recognize that laws forcing recipients of government benefits to accept union representation are unconstitutional. As it did in its brief in Bierman v. Dayton, Buckeye argues that the lower courts have improperly exempted such “exclusive representation” schemes from scrutiny under the First Amendment.

“In its Janus ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court raised serious questions about the constitutionality of forced exclusive representation, and in three legal cases, The Buckeye Institute has outlined why it is unconstitutional to force public employees to be represented by unions that advocate against their interests,” said Robert Alt, president and chief executive officer of The Buckeye Institute. “Like Buckeye’s clients, Katherine Miller—a Washington state childcare provider—should not be forced to speak through a government union with which she disagrees.”

The Miller case, brought by National Right to Work Foundation, raises similar claims to Buckeye’s cases—Uradnik v. Inter Faculty Organization, Reisman v. Associated Faculties of the University of Maine, and Thompson v. Marietta Education Association—and challenges state laws which force individuals, in this case state childcare providers, to allow a government-designated union to speak for them.

 

Six facts about state and national teachers’ unions

By Editorial Staff June 28, 2019

As anyone who’s been a public school teacher can tell you, plenty of false messages circulate about union membership: whether it’s required, why it exists, and whom it benefits (or harms).  Free to Teach wants you to know what’s up. Below are six of the most common issues the major state and national teachers’ unions don’t want you to question.

Fact #1— Teachers feel a lot of pressure to join a union......
Fact #2: Dues are used for politics......
Fact #3: The Janus case is NOT an attack on unions......
Fact #4: Workers who no longer pay the union are not “free riders.” .....
Fact #5: Your local union gets little of your dues to negotiate your pay......
Fact #6: State and national unions don’t always advocate for teachers’ best interests......To Read More...

Buckeye Institute Press Release

Contact: Lisa Gates, Vice President of Comms (614) 224-3255 or Lisa@BuckeyeInstitute.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE    December 4, 2018

The Buckeye Institute Files First Major Post-Janus Labor Challenge in the United States Supreme Court Uradnik v. Inter Faculty Organization Appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States   Columbus, OH -- On Tuesday, The Buckeye Institute filed the first significant First Amendment labor-law challenge in the Supreme Court of the United States since the landmark June 27 decision in Janus v. AFSCME. The case, Uradnik v. Inter Faculty Organization, calls for an immediate end to laws that force public-sector employees to accept a union's exclusive representation. Andrew M. Grossman, partner at BakerHostetler in Washington, D.C., is counsel of record on the petition.   "After years of being forced to speak through a union that advocated against her interests, today Professor Uradnik spoke in her own voice, and asked the Supreme Court to protect her First Amendment rights," said Robert Alt, president and chief executive officer of The Buckeye Institute and a lead attorney on the case. "In its landmark Janus decision, the U.S. Supreme Court raised the question many of us had asked, namely if it violates the First Amendment to compel financial support for union advocacy, how on earth can states require these same public employees to speak through unions that many of them choose not to join? In what could be another landmark case in labor law, The Buckeye Institute is extending the opportunity for the court to answer that question definitively."   Kathy Uradnik's case was filed on July 6 in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, with a preliminary injunction motion filed on July 31. The motion for preliminary injunction was denied on September 27, and The Buckeye Institute immediately filed its notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Buckeye Institute requested that the Court of Appeals quickly deny its motion so the case could be appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.   Background on The Buckeye Institute's Legal Cases and Plaintiffs: The Buckeye Institute was the first organization in the country to file lawsuits calling on courts to end compelled exclusive representation following Janus, and the organization is representing Professor Kathy Uradnik in Minnesota, Professor Jonathan Reisman in Maine, and Jade Thompson in Ohio.   Kathy Uradnik (watch a video of her telling her own story below and read her piece in the St. Cloud Times) is a professor of political science at St. Cloud State University in Minnesota. Her union -- the Inter Faculty Organization (IFO) -- created a system that discriminates against non-union faculty members by barring them from serving on any faculty search, service, or governance committee, and even bars them from joining the Faculty Senate. This second-class treatment of non-union faculty members impairs the ability of non-members to obtain tenure, to advance in their careers, and to participate in the academic life and governance of their institutions.

10K New York City Employees Stop Paying Big Labor Fees After Janus Ruling

Timothy Meads | @timmymeadstweet Sep 15, 2018

The New York Post recently reported that more than 10,000 New York City employees decided that they actually did not want to pay money towards their previously forced monopoly bargaining representatives. These workers were freed from paying forced union dues by a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in Janus v. AFSCME which declared that forced public sector union fees are a violation of the First Amendment.

According to the New York Post, this resulted in nearly a quarter million worth of union fees being subtracted from the hands of Big Labor..........To Read More....

My Take - Ten thousand already?  Those who take this step first are pariahs to their fellow employees, and they let them know it.  So it takes guts to make such a move, but when the number is that high this early - that's a harbinger of things to come for the unions. It won't be long before the numbers start to really rise.

A Post-Janus Agenda for California’s Public Sector Unions

“If you do not prevail in this case, the unions will have less political influence; yes or no?” Kennedy asked. “Yes, they will have less political influence,” Frederick answered. –  an excerpt from the Janus vs. AFSCME trial, quoted in the Washington Post, February 26, 2018

February 28, 2018/in 2018, UNION WATCH /by Edward Ring

Earlier this week the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in the Janus vs. AFSCME case. Mark Janus, a public employee in Illinois, is challenging the right of unions to charge “fair share” fees, because he disagrees with the political agenda which he claims his fees help pay for.

What if government unions were accountable to their members? What if the politics of these unions mirrored the politics of the members? Would Mark Janus still want out?

It’s already possible for public employees to “opt-out” of paying that portion of their dues that fund explicitly political activity, although in practice the unions typically make that opt-out process very difficult. But Mark Janus is arguing that all dues paid to public sector unions are political, because the consequences of collective bargaining in the public sector impact taxes, government debt, budgets and spending priorities. He is arguing that the agenda of public sector unions, including collective bargaining, is inherently political............To Read More....

‘But Gorsuch’ Is More Than a Slogan

U.S. Supreme Court’s Janus deliberations will likely usher in a substantive and lasting victory over noxious power of public-sector unions.

March 1, 2018 Steven Greenhut

We’ve got a box of red balls at the office imprinted with a simple line drawing of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and the words, “But Gorsuch.”

Whenever someone complains about President Donald Trump — and I routinely complain about his crude personality and some of his policies — we can chuck the ball at the wall and remind ourselves of a redeeming feature of his presidency. It was a fun idea, courtesy of the think tank that employs me. This hasn’t relieved much stress, but reading about the latest high-court deliberations and realizing that Gorsuch is on the court has done wonders for my soul. This week, the court began oral arguments in Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

The case centers on these questions: Should public-sector workers be forced to pay dues, even though they might vigorously oppose the agenda of their union representatives? Does this violate their First Amendment rights?

Practically speaking, this case could — and probably will — dramatically roll back the power of government unions in non-right-to-work states. My writing focuses on California, where such unions essentially control all levers of government. The results are clear: massive pension and other debts to pay for crazy levels of public-sector compensation, the obliteration of public budgets and services, the protection of bad teachers and other workers........To Read More.....

Labor Thuggery at the Supreme Court

Justice Kagan dons her capo gown

Betsy McCaughey  February 28, 2018

Organized labor took off the gloves Monday, warning the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court that freeing public employees from mandatory union dues would lead to strikes and union violence. It was ugly.  The Court heard oral arguments challenging laws in 22 states and the District of Columbia that force public employees to pay unions to represent them, even if they disagree with the union’s demands and politics.

Mark Janus, a child support specialist and public employee in Illinois, claims his First Amendment free speech rights are being violated when he is forced to pay money to a union — the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). The union “uses my monthly fees to promote an agenda I don’t support,” Janus objects.............A not so subtle threat. No wonder the lawyer for Janus labeled the mandatory fees “protection money.” He asks, who can defend the “idea that the government needs to force its employees to subsidize unions or otherwise the unions will disrupt the government.”...........It’s unlikely contracts will be invalidated. But to answer Kagan’s question, the “justification” is called the United States Constitution............To Read More.....

My Take - Two things are being made clear in this - one, Kagan is going to be exactly what everyone on the right thought she would be - a leftist lunatic just like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and it's clear she's going to be there for the rest of her life, which is another clear demonstration of we need a 28th Amendment creating age and term limits for the federal judiciary.

Secondly, if the only argument labor attorneys have is threatening to have civil disorder, disruption of services and extremist tactics by labor, then it's time these unions were dismantled as terrorists organizations or prosecuted under RICO.