DULUTH, Minn. – A U.S. Supreme Court decision on Wednesday is being called a potentially crippling blow to unions representing government workers nationwide.

The high court ruled 5-to-4 that non-union workers can't be forced to pay so-called fair share fees to help cover the costs of collective bargaining and other work carried out by public sector unions.

Chet Jorgenson, president of the Minnesota Association of Professional Employees, sees the decision as an attack on all workers.

He notes that in states with strong unions, wages are higher and economies are stronger.

"Minnesota doesn't want to be like Alabama or Mississippi where they don't have unions,” he states. “We want a strong economy, and if you compare our economy to places where they don't have unions or they have very weak unions, there's no comparison. We do much better."

A recent report projects the high court's Janus ruling could lead to reduced wages for government employees, and a drop in U.S. economic activity of between $11 billion and $33 billion annually.

The court's decision overturned a 1977 ruling that found unions can collect fees for non-political work that benefits all workers.

Opponents of fair share laws called the decision a win for workers who don't want to be forced to pay for political speech they disagree with, and claim the move will create more choice in the workplace.

Heidi Shierholz, a former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor, points out it's already illegal for fair share fees to be used for political activities.

She says giving workers a choice about paying their share of costs associated with negotiating higher wages, benefits and filing workplace grievances is likely to produce what she calls a "free ride" effect.

"Even if they value it highly, they may be unwilling to pay the dues, and that will starve the union of resources and will hurt the ability of the union to provide crucial services,” she says. “The real goal is to actually starve the unions to reduce their effectiveness."

Shierholz maintains Wednesday's decision is the result of a 40-year effort to weaken public sector unions through the courts.

In February, a report by the Economic Policy Institute identified a core group of wealthy foundations with ties to powerful corporate lobbies that bankrolled a long line of fair share fee cases, including Janus.


get more stories like this via email

The nation's billionaires have doubled their wealth over the past seven years, while working people in West Virginia and elsewhere continue to face economic struggles.

The collective fortune of America's more than eight hundred billionaires hit a record $5.8 trillion in April, according to a new report by Americans for Tax Fairness.

Gary Zuckett, executive director of the Citizen Action Education Fund, said the Mountain State is just beginning to see the ramifications of a deep income tax cut that was passed last year by state lawmakers.

He said the lack of funding has made it difficult to address steadily worsening problems.

"Like the child-care crisis in West Virginia, the corrections crisis - our prisons have been in the state of emergency for the last three or four years," said Zuckett. "There's a lot of things that we need to be using our tax money for, besides giving it to the rich in income tax cuts."

America's billionaires now own more than 50% more wealth than does the entire bottom half of the nation's households.

Under the current tax code, however, the staggering wealth gains made by the richest are unlikely to ever be taxed.

Trump-era tax benefits for the wealthy enacted in 2017 are set to expire at the end of 2025.

Zuckett explains that the laws cut the top income-tax rate from more than 39% to 37%, and cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%.

"The mom and pop grocery stores and the people working in Walmart, everyday working people," said Zuckett, "pay taxes on every dollar that they earn, but the system is rigged to benefit people at the top."

According to the report, if the wealthiest Americans were taxed at the rate of average Americans, the nation would have new potential tax revenue of roughly $120 billion each year, which could help pay for more affordable and accessible health care.





get more stories like this via email

Michigan legislators are tackling predatory lending practices, aiming to set standards for payday loans and maximum interest rates.

In Kent County alone, with a payday loan volume of $60 million, the House Insurance and Financial Services Committee discussed Senate Bill 632, sponsored by Sen. Sarah Anthony, D-Lansing, which seeks to cap annual interest rates at 36% compared to current rates reaching nearly 400%.

The bill has passed the Senate and is part of a legislative effort including House Bill 5290, sponsored by Rep. Abraham Aiyash, D-Hamtramck.

Dallas Lenear, founder and executive director of Project GREEN, a grassroots economic empowerment network, highlighted concerns about the exploitative nature of these loans.

"Payday loans inevitably are designed in a fashion that is unaffordable for the majority of people who use those loans," Lenear contended.

Lenear pointed out many other states have already capped their interest rate or totally outlawed payday loans because of the financial damage they can cause their citizens and argued it is time for Michigan to do better.

Lenear noted while the payday loan industry believes it offers hope to borrowers in times of need, a study by project GREEN found 78% of respondents said payday loans either prolonged or worsened their financial situation.

"If they've had any experience with it, they'll start to shake their head and they'll say those things are terrible and I was caught in the trap and I would never use those things again. I'd use it out of desperation," Lenear reported.

Advocacy groups such as the Michigan League for Public Policy and the Michigan Catholic Conference testified in support of the bills, to end the predatory practices.

A case before the U.S. Supreme Court could have implications for the country's growing labor movement. Justices will hear oral arguments in Starbucks versus McKinney today to determine if the bar should be raised for the National Labor Relations Board when it seeks to impose court-ordered injunctions on companies.

David Groves, communications director with the Washington State Labor Council, said the Supreme Court could further undermine the power of the NLRB, the independent federal agency that protects employees' rights.

"We already have weak labor laws in this country that have such minor penalties for breaking union organizing laws that companies routinely do it, and this is another opportunity for them to weaken labor laws even further," he argued.

The case involves Starbucks' firing of seven employees in Memphis during their union campaign in 2021. The coffee company says it rehired the workers and denies wrongdoing. If the justices rule in favor of Starbucks, it could make it harder for the NLRB to seek court orders.

Groves said the law states that workers have a right to organize unions in their workplace without coercion or retaliation from their employers.

"That's all fine and good but if the penalty's not significant enough, then they'll just go ahead and break that law and consider it the cost of doing business if they have to pay a fine two years down the road," he explained.

Groves said his and other labor organizations support the passage of the Protecting the Right to Organize or PRO Act in Congress, which would strengthen labor laws, including providing greater authority to the NLRB.


get more stories like this via email