Fate of the Union
Detailing why the Janus decision will not have much impact on the PBA and its Locals
■ BY MITCHELL KRUGEL
For the past few weeks – the past few years, actually – hearing“ Janus” has sent an icky feeling shivering up the spines of PBA members and all who know the virtues of public-sector labor unions. The front man for the lawsuit that originated from decidedly Republican southern Illinois and culminated with the U. S. Supreme Court ruling on June 27 to fracture union membership could very well become the name connoting ill will for loyal union members. Some might see“ Janus” as a combination of Darth Vader, the Terminator, Cruella de Vil, Lord Voldemort and the Wicked Witch of the West.
Make no mistake, the Janus decision that declares a union’ s right to charge“ agency” or“ fair share” fees unconstitutional and attempts to give employers an upper-hand in labor relations is the handiwork of corporate America’ s billionaire boys club that includes the Cruella-esque Koch brothers. And it’ s a prominent agenda item for Republicans who fear the action – political or otherwise – public-sector unions have taken to protect the vital service and benefits they provide to a working class whose icon certainly could be law enforcement officers.
Despite how much anger Janus generates, as PBA President Pat Colligan and others have communicated, the Supreme Court ruling will have little or no impact on the NJ State PBA and its ability to provide consummate representation. In fact, when assessing what corporate America hopes Janus will do to organized labor, there’ s logic and reasons to believe that the PBA’ s reservoir of exclusive benefits – including its vaunted Legal Protection Plan – and its ever-increasing unified voice will minimize the impact of this decision.
“ The PBA has done a good job insulating itself from what will be the impact on many other non-law enforcement or other public safety labor unions,” contends Paul Kleinbaum, the longtime labor law attorney with Zazzali, Fagella, Nowak, Kleinbaum & Friedman, which represents the NJ State PBA.“ The decision itself won’ t have tremendous impact on the PBA because of two things: Most law enforcement officers are members of PBAs in their towns, counties or state agencies. And the PBA offers some attractive benefits like the Legal Protection Plan that would not be available to non-members.”
Janus tread marks might be scorching public-sector union leaders because with the ruling, the Supreme Court reversed 41 years of precedent set in the 1977 Abood v. Detroit Board of Education case. In a unanimous decision, the court affirmed that the union shop, then legal in the private sector, was also legal in the public sector and that non-members may be assessed agency fees to recover the costs of collective bargaining, contract administration and grievance adjustment. According to the ruling, objectors to union membership or policy could opt for their dues to not be used for other ideological or political purposes.
But did the court need to strike the most vehement blow to labor since President Reagan fired 11,000 striking air traffic controllers in 1981 just to orchestrate the freedom to not have dues used for political purposes? Did the court need to grant the right to not have to pay for collective bargaining, contract administration and grievance adjustment because funding political purposes is a violation of First Amendment rights?
Those on the front lines of labor union leadership question whether the ruling was targeted at freedom of speech or even freedom of paying dues.
“ This was the culmination of anti-union organizations to try and zap the power of public-sector unions,” Kleinbaum assesses.“ Those organizations and the powers that be in Washington D. C. know that unions exert a tremendous amount of political
CONTINUED ON PAGE 40 www. njcopsmagazine. com ■ JULY 2018 39