The U.S. Supreme Court will once again take up a case that could attack public labor union funding. Janus v AFSCME seeks to stop automatic paycheck deductions for union dues under union contracts. When a majority of workers form a union they bargain a  labor contract that often includes a clause allowing automatic payroll deductions for dues. That’s the issue in the Janus case.

Nobody is forced to join a union but in union workplaces where a majority of workers have decided to have a union, collective bargaining costs are covered by dues deductions. Workers covered by collective bargaining agreements that contain dues clauses are required by the contracts to pay dues to support collective bargaining. The Janus case seeks to give workers covered by collective bargaining contracts the right to stop paying for the bargaining. But labor law requires unions to bargain for all workers covered by the contract.

Eric Heins is President of the California Teachers Association. He says cases like Janus v AFSCME are efforts to silence worker voices on the job and in society.

[Eric Heins]: “This is part of a coordinated attack on labor and on unions. It’s an attempt to just de-fund us and what they call defanging us and taking away one of the last voices – collective voices –  for working men and women in this country.

What we’ve been doing in California, at least with California Teachers Association, we’ve been working very hard to engage our members. To make sure that collectively we’re relevant to the things they care about – or we care I should say about since I’m a teacher too. I think we’re in a very good place here – as good as can be expected.”

Heins says the dues money Janus v AFSCME is attacking allows union to give workers a voice in America.

[Eric Heins]: “For our kids and for workers and to push for the things that are right – like a liveable $15 minimum wage or any other protections that workers have.”