SALT LAKE CITY – The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments Monday in a case many say could determine the fate of the nation's unions.

Justices will decide whether or not Mark Janus, a public employee in Illinois, should be required to pay fees to the union that provides services for all public workers regardless of their union status, including contract negotiations and representing workers filing grievances.

Jeff Worthington, president of Utah's AFL-CIO, says workers who receive benefits from collective bargaining should pay their fair share for that work.

"We look at the Janus case as the opportunity for big corporations to basically try to break the unions,” he states. “We believe in the unions for the good that it does for our working families all across the country."

Worthington says regardless of the outcome in Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), unions will continue to work on behalf of all employees, but he acknowledges the move would mean a big blow to union revenue streams.

Janus' supporters argue that fair share fees amount to forced subsidization of unions, and violate workers' First Amendment rights.

In a 2016 Chicago Tribune opinion piece, Janus wrote, "The union voice is not my voice."

A ruling in favor of Janus is expected to kill fair share fees in 22 states.

Worthington says it's too early to write off the power of workers coming together to bargain for equitable conditions, and points to a list of advances made possible by unions, including child labor laws and weekends.

"From paid vacation, sick leave, eight-hour work day, overtime, pensions, safety laws, health care benefits, we lift the working class up to a living wage, you know, instead of working for minimum wage," he stresses.

In 2016, after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court reached a 4-to-4 stalemate in a similar case, Friedrichs v. the California Teachers Association.

Scalia's replacement, Justice Neil Gorsuch, is expected to side with Janus.


get more stories like this via email

Washington joins a handful of states to do away with mandatory meetings for employees on political or religious matters.

Sometimes known as captive audience meetings, the gatherings were seen as a way for employers to give their opinions on subjects like unionization, and held potential consequences for employees who didn't attend. Lawmakers passed a bill this session allowing workers to skip the meetings without repercussions.

Sen. Karen Keiser, D-Des Moines, a sponsor of the bill, said we live in a divided society where emotions run high on political topics.

"This bill simply protects employees to have a real choice on whether or not to attend a meeting called by their boss to be told about some political or religious issue," Keiser explained.

Keiser pointed out the legislation is nonpartisan. For instance, employers could not force employees to attend anti-union meetings, but also could not force them to attend a meeting about the importance of reproductive rights. The bill takes effect June 6.

Keiser noted the bill likely got across the finish line this session because of the uptick in union organizing and support for labor. She added there are widely known stories of Starbucks managers, for example, requiring employees to attend anti-union meetings while the employees organized the workplace.

"Employees have been forced to attend meetings to listen to the boss or the employer basically tell them why they shouldn't join a union," Keiser observed.

Washington is the sixth state to pass a law prohibiting attendance at captive audience meetings. Connecticut, Maine, Minnesota and New York have passed similar laws in recent years. Oregon passed a law allowing workers to skip such meetings without repercussions in 2010.


get more stories like this via email

A bill vetoed by Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin would have raised the state's minimum wage to $15 an hour starting in 2026.

While the bill moved out of committee and the General Assembly, it did so on party-line votes. Youngkin opposed the bill, saying it could hurt small businesses and some restaurants.

Jay Speer, executive director of the Virginia Poverty Law Center, said it was disappointing to see the measure vetoed.

"Wages are way too low. People cannot afford housing and food and everything else," Speer pointed out. "It's a disappointment that they can't raise the minimum wage so people can survive. I mean, it's long overdue."

Passing the bill was part of a 2020 minimum-wage increase requiring a reauthorization to bring it up to $15. A state study found a person has to make at least $14.55 an hour to afford the cheapest place to live while only spending one-third of his or her income on housing. The current minimum wage in Virginia is $12 an hour, but around 500,000 Virginians make $12 or less.

Youngkin also vetoed a bill ending exemptions from Virginia's minimum-wage requirements for farmworkers or temporary foreign workers.

Kim Bobo, executive director of the Virginia Interfaith Center on Public Policy, said it was not as impactful since most farmworkers make more than the minimum wage. But she said the exemption remains for another reason.

"The only reason farmworkers continue to be exempted in Virginia is racism," Bobo contended. "That's why they're exempted. And, we should just change that, like there's no reason not to. It really does not affect that many workers in Virginia."

Youngkin and other legislators with a farming background said the bill would hinder farmers' ability to turn a profit.

New York restaurant workers need to know their rights to better navigate their workplaces. A new report finds high rates of what it calls "occupational segregation" in the restaurant industry, which can relegate some people to lower-paying jobs.

Workers' rights organizations are counteracting this with training programs. Alima Iskakova, a server for Exquisite Staffing, a catering company, said the CHOW training from Restaurant Opportunities Centers United is helping her.

"Since I completed this training course, I am more confident when it comes to job interviews," she said. "I am more confident - like, when it comes to these types of interviews, plus with all my experience and the knowledge that I got from ROC United, I have a higher income."

She was also trained in safe food handling, OSHA certification and other need-to-know information about the restaurant industry. These courses are available in several cities beyond New York.

The report also notes that, unlike training offered by organizations such as the National Restaurant Association, these courses prioritize developing restaurant workers' power to support individual career development.

The report says racism and sexism abound in the restaurant industry. White men make up a majority of higher-earning positions, such as bartenders.

Although these training courses are helpful, Iskakova noteed that not knowing English can be a disadvantage. She said other cultural differences can make this work challenging.

"In the hospitality industry, even like when people come here as an immigrant, they don't know the rules, they don't know the laws," she said. "And ROC United, they help us to do the cover letter, resume. There are certain things - like, there is a difference."

Another challenge she encountered was the difference between Celsius and Fahrenheit.

Iskakova said her work has been interesting, but she's got ambitions outside of food service. Along with photography, she's a communications major at CUNY.


get more stories like this via email