FIGHTING FOR FREEDOM Southern states moving to reinforce Janus ruling

State Sen. Jan Hochadel ( D-Conn.)

In a state whose public schools the Connecticut Examiner describes as being plagued by “low performance … high chronic absenteeism and (problems with) student discipline,” apparently the solution is to reward teachers with a pay raise.

At least that’s the conclusion of Jan Hochadel, a Democratic state senator and the state’s assistant majority leader, who co-sponsored a bill that would establish a minimum salary for teachers and paraducators, while also requiring boards of education to offer paras the Municipal Employee Health Insurance Plan and pay their contribution required under their retirement systems.

If you’re perplexed by the seeming disconnect evidenced in the measure, Raised House Bill 6881, consider that, when not lawmaking in Hartford, Hochadel serves as president of the Connecticut chapter of the American Federation of Teachers.

In essence, Hochadel is proposing, lobbying for and voting on her own pay raise, as are House of Representatives members Christopher Poulos, Kevin Brown and Maryam Khan all teachers, Democrats and union members.

Speaking in favor the bill, Shellye Davis, president of the Hartford Federation of Paraeducators, asserted that, “There is a crisis in our classrooms. Connecticut has more than 1,300 unfilled paraeducator positions across the state.”

Writing for the Yankee Institute, Meghan Portfolio observed, “It is unclear if Ms. Davis, who is also a para in the Hartford school system, utilized her paid union time to be in person while her classroom is in crisis.”

None of which is to suggest that all Connecticut educators are undeserving of a pay increase. Many undoubtedly work hard against difficult odds and produce excellent results. They deserve to be rewarded.

But just as certainly, there are teachers in the classroom failing their students, and they need to be removed just as underperforming employees in the private sector are.

The difference is that, by and large, private-sector workers aren’t represented by unions that have not only corrupted the governing process, but in many cases, are literally infiltrating it.

Onpaper, Janus v. AFSCME, the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2018 ruling banned mandatory union membership and dues in the public workforce. But in the years since it was issued, lower courts have demonstrated little stomach for enforcing the decision, emboldening union leaders to simply behave as though it never happened.

That could change soon, as several cases that could give Janus teeth are currently under consideration by the Supreme Court. In the meantime, however, at least three states — Florida, Kentucky and Tennessee (and possibly Arkansas, too)— are moving ahead with measures intended to do exactly what the ruling says.

And then some.

In Florida — where the Freedom Foundation is actively engaged, including the use of a registered lobbyist — Republicans in in the state Legislature are working to exploit supermajorities in both houses in order to enact a measure whose language mirrors that of the Janus ruling, with a few extra surprises thrown in for good measure.

On March 7 — the first day of the 2023 legislative session — GOP members of the Senate Oversight and Accountability committee quickly approved SB 256, a companion bill to a House version that was overwhelmingly approved a year ago but never received a committee hearing in the Senate.

The proposal, dubbed the “Paycheck Protection Bill,” would, among other things: n prevent the state from deducting dues on behalf of unions from public employees’ paychecks, forcing unions to do their own billing and collections; n require audits of unions representing public employees; n require union membership cards to include wording echoing the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, which recognized the right of public employees to decline union membership, due and fees with no loss of representation or benefits; n limit the compensation of union officers to no more than their highest-paid member; and, n close the legal loopholes unions use to prevent members from voting to decertify them.

Both the House and Senate versions would exempt law enforcement and firefighter unions from the proposed changes.

Meanwhile in Kentucky, a pair of bills moving through the General Assembly would also take the state out of the dues-collection business.

Senate Bill 7 would stop automatic transfers to political action committees from an employee’s paycheck. House Bill 364 would do the same, in addition to preventing payroll deductions for union membership dues.

House Bill 26 would prohibit public funds from being used by unions for lobbying purposes. In essence, it simply imposes rules that prevent the government from lobbying itself.

Both Kentucky bills have passed through committee and await floor action in their respective chambers.

A recent study revealed that the Kentucky Education Association directs nearly $4 out of every $10 in union dues collected from its members to the National Education Association (NEA), which uses these funds to support partisan liberal political organizations and activities.

As the final version of SB 7 is decided, lawmakers plan to strengthen the bill with an amendment that does what the Florida bill would already do — end all government involvement in transmitting funds directly to unions, including payroll deductions for membership dues.

Lastly, in Tennessee, a bill augthored by Republican Senate Leader Jack Johnson of Franklin requires the Tennessee Department of Education to “publish the annual state salary

By JEFF RHODES, VP for News & Information

schedule” on the department website, but an amendment to the bill adds a requirement that would prohibit union dues from being deducted from teachers’ salaries.

The amendment explicitly prohibits any Local Education Agency (LEA) from deducting dues from an employee’s payroll for any “professional employees’ organization,” or union. Instead, it would be up to the individual employee to pay those voluntarily.

“This section does not prohibit an employee of an LEA from personally and voluntarily remitting dues to a professional employees’ organization,” the bill notes.

Union caterwauling notwithstanding, nothing being proposed in either state would prevent workers from forming or belonging to a union if they so choose. The legislation would simply make unions responsible for their own dues deductions.

Moreover, while the Florida , Kentucky and Tennessee proposals all include provisions not specifically mentioned in the Janus ruling as written by Justice Samuel Alito and affirmed by four of his colleagues, each is entirely consistent with its unambiguous intent.

The ruling clearly states, “Neither an agency fee nor any other payment to the union may be deducted from a nonmember’s wages, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay.”

What better way to ensure public employees do, in fact, agree to support their union than by making them directly responsible for paying dues rather than allowing the state to deduct it preemptively at the union’s behest?

“When unions are allowed to outsource their own billing and collection activities to a taxpayer-supported state agency, pretty soon it starts to feel like the money belongs to them instead of the worker who earned it,” said Aaron Withe, CEO of the Freedom Foundation, which has filed numerous lawsuits around the country on behalf of public employees whose First Amendment right to opt out is being violated with impunity by their union.

“It’s time unions were reminded which side is working for the other,” Withe said.