Gabriel Winant at The Nation writes—Will ‘Janus’ Prove to Be the Fatal Blow that Unions Have Long Feared? Or will it inspire the kind of militant unionism that could still resurrect the labor movement?
[...] Now, with Janus v. American Federation State, County, and Municipal Employees, the Supreme Court may have pushed this tension to its historical breaking point. In a decision that has proved even worse than expected, the Court has finally dealt public-sector unions the crippling blow that conservative groups have long been pushing, and that labor activists have long feared: It has determined that public employees are no longer required to pay any fees for union representation, and, in the process, has likely deprived unions of many thousands of members and millions of dollars. Moreover, the Court didn’t stop there. Its decision also raises the bar for union membership by turning it, for the first time, into something workers must opt into, rather than giving them the choice to opt out. And, in his majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito further invites a challenge to the very concept of exclusive representation by a single union in a given workplace—the bedrock of American labor law. This appears to be an offer to overrule the 1935 Wagner Act.
With so many anti-labor land mines planted in a single decision, it’s tempting to write the labor movement’s obituary—and a few years ago, something like Janus would almost certainly have seemed lethal. When unemployment was high, workers had little confidence, and workplace ferment was at a historically low ebb, a “right-to-work” ruling would almost certainly have meant further demoralization and disorganization. It was not hard to imagine the ensuing death spiral.
Some of that will surely happen now too. Public-sector unions will bleed membership and resources; their capacity for external activities such as election campaigning will shrink too, weakening progressive politicians. Yet there’s also reason to think that the fallout from the decision may be a more ambiguous affair, that it could even serve as the kind of rejuvenating shock the movement needs—the kind that heralded previous moments of rapid growth. [...]
TOP COMMENTS • HIGH IMPACT STORIES
QUOTATION
“When the Chief Justice read me the oath,' he [FDR] later told an adviser, 'and came to the words "support the Constitution of the United States" I felt like saying: "Yes, but it's the Constitution as I understand it, flexible enough to meet any new problem of democracy--not the kind of Constitution your Court has raised up as a barrier to progress and democracy.”
~~Susan Quinn, The Furious Improvisation: How the WPA and a Cast of Thousands Made High Art out of Desperate Times (2008)
TWEET OF THE DAY
BLAST FROM THE PAST
On this date at Daily Kos in 2008—Fixing the millionaire’s amendment:
In essence, the Court just ruled that even though a millionaire can spend what he or she wants to say what he or she wants, the fact that his or her opponent gets to raise additional money is an infringement on the millionaire's free speech rights.
The problem is that, as the dissent says here, no one is stifling the millionaires' speech. They can still spend whatever they want to say whatever they want. This just enhances their opponents' speech.
The notion that enhancing your opponents' speech is infringing on your own is a brand new level of crazy, and I say that as someone who essentially agrees with Buckley that money equals speech. (Try to get your message out to a wide audience without spending a dime.)
Apparently, to conservatives, money only equals speech when it's rich people's money.
On today’s Kagro in the Morning show, Greg Dworkin and Joan McCarter enjoy rounding up primaries and polling, but lament all else. Fox News demands Red Hen protests and gets them. The Village rejects gerrymandering complaints, but DK Elections’ Stephen Wolf sets 'em straight.
RadioPublic|LibSyn|YouTube|Patreon|Square Cash (Share code: Send $5, get $5!)