SEATTLE – The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing a case Monday that has big implications for unions.

In Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), justices will decide whether employees represented by public unions have to pay so-called fair share fees if they do not want to be members.

If the court sides with Mark Janus, an Illinois public employee, unions would still work on behalf of these employees in collective bargaining and other negotiations, but the employees wouldn't have to pay for that representation. It would deliver a big blow to part of unions' revenue stream.

But Karen Strickland, president of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) of Washington, says it could be a wake-up call to unions and their members.

"We are doing the work, and if we do it effectively – to really engage our members in what the union is all about and how important organized labor is to their well-being on the job and in their communities and for their students and so on and so forth – then we can actually come out stronger on the other side," she states.

Briefs filed in support of Janus say he shouldn't have to pay union fees on First Amendment grounds.

Strickland notes that dues to AFT Washington are not used for political spending.

Union membership has declined nationwide in the past few decades, especially as more states become right-to-work states, meaning employees don't pay for representation.

However, membership in Washington state has actually grown by 84,000 since 2015, with the biggest gains among young people.

The public unions in the 22 states that are not right-to-work, including Washington, represent about 5 million workers.

Strickland says the attack on unions extends beyond this case and is so vigorous because the unions are effective at protecting and representing workers.

"Our members' salaries and benefits are better because they're in a union,” she stresses. “Injury and fatality rates are significantly lower when people have a union.

“The percentage of employees who actually have health care coverage is higher when people are in unions."

Strickland adds that wages are higher even for non-union members in cities where union representation is high.

This is the second in a two-part series on the effect of the Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court case on Washington state's public unions.


get more stories like this via email

Labor groups representing thousands of Minnesota state workers find themselves at serious odds with Gov. Tim Walz over his move this week to reduce remote work options.

Walz announced that, starting June 1, most state-agency employees have to carry out their duties in person at least 50% of the time. That has drawn swift criticism from the unions that negotiate for nearly 40,000 state workers, including the Minnesota Association of Professional Employees.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 5 is another, and at a Thursday news conference, its executive director, Bart Andersen, expressed frustration about having no input in the decision.

"If we are going to be considered a labor-friendly state, we need to have conversations," he said, "not dropped at the last minute and told that all these people have to go back to work in a month and a half, with no means to get there."

MAPE officials have said this also disrupts the lives of workers with children, citing day-care demands and long waiting lists for those facilities.

The governor has pointed to an exemption for people who live more than 75 miles from their primary work location. He also has said the change should help downtown businesses in the Twin Cities by spurring more foot traffic.

These debates have been happening in the private sector, too, since the constraints of the pandemic have faded. But Andersen suggested to anyone who believes remote workers are "slacking off" to think again.

"They're not in a bubble. They're not isolated," he said. "They're working with their teams and they're getting the work done."

Andersen said they know tasks such as road maintenance can't be done from home. But he highlighted the effectiveness of telework in recruiting and attracting people for the public-sector jobs that have that flexibility. The mounting tension between these labor groups and the administration comes as talks on a new contract take shape.


get more stories like this via email

Kansas City transit riders and workers are fighting proposed cuts, warning of a looming public transit crisis.

Hundreds of advocates of the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority gathered on the steps of City Hall last week over threats to cut 13 bus routes, eliminate up to 175 transit jobs and shut down the Immigrant and Refugee Integration Services microtransit program.

Protesters warned the cuts could strand thousands, cost hundreds of jobs and leave misclassified IRIS drivers without unemployment benefits.

Ashley Ball, a leader with Stand Up KC and the Missouri Workers Center, relies on public transit for work.

"I was living in a hotel with my kids in North Kansas City and the buses weren't always reliable, so I got IRIS early to be able to get to my shift," Ball explained. "I work in the city now, overnights at Taco Bell. It's very beneficial to have IRIS when I get off work."

Supporters argued the cuts are needed to address KCATA's budget shortfall, as the city's $71 million allocation falls far short of the $117 million needed. Officials also cited high administrative costs and call for more efficient transit operations.

In 2024, KCATA reported 1.1 million riders, a four-year high, averaging more than 35,000 people daily. Couple that with KC Streetcars, and Kansas City's transit served more than 40,000 people per day last year.

For Ball, its significance goes beyond just transportation.

"Our public transportation is the heart of the city," Ball emphasized. "It allows us, no matter where we are from or what we look like, to move around, accomplish our goals and try to live a better dream."

The budget cuts are being discussed by the City Council Finance Committee after talks were delayed in a previous session.


get more stories like this via email

Minnesota's up-and-coming doctors say in order to better care for patients down the road, they need collective bargaining power.

A large group of them has filed to form a union, reflecting an industry shift. This week, a supermajority of nearly 1,000 University of Minnesota resident physicians and fellows submitted their union-creation plans. It follows a similar move by peers at Hennepin Health earlier this month.

Dr. Thomas Schmidt, infectious diseases fellow at the University of Minnesota, said the current work environment for providers advancing through their training in hospitals and other settings is pretty grueling, with up to 80-hour workweeks in some cases.

"It's us making sure that we're having some breaks and making sure that we're able to have some life outside of training," Schmidt explained. "To ensure that we can be good doctors when we're there with our patients."

Schmidt cited burnout, still lingering from the COVID-19 pandemic, as one factor behind doctors embracing unionization. Researchers say the number of newly union-represented doctors could soon double, compared with the past two decades.

Because of consolidation in health care, more physicians are now employees of larger systems, as opposed to independent practitioners. The university said it will be responsive to all necessary parties as the process takes shape.

Doctors still getting their training say the residency system leaves little room to advocate for changes or request a new location. And while established medical professionals might make good money, Schmidt said it is not the case for residents, who are often in the $15 to $20 per-hour range.

"That is not a substantial amount of money to be able to take care of your housing, to take care of your family," Schmidt pointed out. "I'm a parent of two young kids, so it has not been easy to be a trainee."

He added some peers are delaying starting a family because of the limited pay and long hours.

Skeptics fear the union push among doctors will reduce the earnings of specialists. Meanwhile, the Minnesota Association of Professional Employees, which has members working on infectious disease control in the state health department, recognizes the need for providers to have a bigger voice. It said it is vital as public health concerns, such as the bird flu, add to the work demands for the young professionals.