Janus was a Roman god with two faces, each looking in the opposite direction.
"Janus-faced" means two-faced, or deceitful. It aptly describes the Trump administration and the other big-time, union-busting backers of the plaintiff in Janus v AFSCME Council 31.
The case, which is before the U.S. Supreme Court, could, in effect, force all public employee unions into a "right to work" framework. Also, it could "further undermine the rights of workers to choose, in a democratic process based on a majority vote, to support the payment of fees or dues for those represented by a union and protected by the collective bargaining agreement," according to Bill Londrigan, president of the Kentucky State AFL-CIO.
The case, which is before the U.S. Supreme Court, could, in effect, force all public employee unions into a "right to work" framework.
Federal law requires a union to represent all hourly workers at a unionized job site. Under a state RTW law, workers can enjoy union-won wages and benefits without joining the union and paying dues or paying the union a fair-share fee to represent them.
"Janus is part of the whole effort to turn back the clock on workers and unions by undermining our ability to represent our members by shutting off our financial resources," Londrigan said. "Now with Janus, the focus is primarily on the public-sector, which has been the fastest growing part of the labor movement."
In the Janus case, Mark Janus, an Illinois state government employee, is suing AFSCME because he doesn't want to pay the union a fair-share fee. Rabidly anti-union groups like the National Right to Work Committee and the State Policy Network are behind him.
Organizations like the NRTWC and SPN claim they support "worker freedom." Their real purpose is crushing unions. The SPN admits it's goal is to “defund and defang" public employee unions.
"Under current law, every union-represented teacher, police officer, caregiver or other public service worker may choose whether or not to join the union — but the union is required to negotiate on behalf of all workers whether they join or not," explained Roberta Lynch, AFSCME Council 31 executive director, in a Springfield, Ill., State Journal-Register guest column.
Council 31 represents 100,000 active and retired public service workers, including Janus.
She added, "Since all the workers benefit from the union’s gains, it’s only fair that everyone chip in toward the cost. That’s why 40 years ago a unanimous Supreme Court [in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education] approved the kind of cost-sharing arrangements known as fair share."
Trump's solicitor general has filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Janus.
Even so, the president says he's the champion of workers. Yet on the campaign trail, he said he preferred "right to work" states to non-RTW states. He ran on a platform with a plank calling for a national right to work law.
"The Janus v. AFSCME case is an effort by powerful corporate interests to outlaw fair share, encouraging workers to contribute nothing toward the cost of union representation," Lynch also said. "It actually began as a political scheme by Gov. Bruce Rauner, who shortly after taking office issued an executive order and filed a lawsuit trying to ban fair-share fees."
After a handful of Kentucky counties passed local RTW laws, Rauner, a Republican, started pushing for local "right to work" zones in Illinois municipalities. Under federal law, only states can pass RTW measures. GOP Gov. Matt Bevin and his Republican-majority legislature made Kentucky a RTW state in January.
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, one of the most anti-union lawmakers in Washington, has proposed a national RTW law.