Free Webinar: Fair Share Fees…Going, Going, Gone?

July 11—1-2 p.m.

REGISTER NOW

In February, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Janus v. the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)—a case that could potentially impact public unions in Minnesota.

Janus v. AFSCME focuses on whether public employees who are not full union members can be required to pay fair-share union fees. (Generally defined as the full dues, minus any amount that is spent for political purposes). Fair-share fees are meant to compensate unions for the work they do on behalf of all bargaining unit members, such as negotiating wage and benefit increases even for those employees who do not pay full union dues.

The plaintiff challenging the constitutionality of fair share fees is Mark Janus, a public employee who claims being required to pay fair-share fees for union activity with which he disagrees forces him to speak and associate with the union, and that violates his First Amendment rights.

Given the current composition of the court, most commentators predict the decision will go in Janus’s favor and against unions, leading to the following questions:

  • What could the decision mean for public unions?
  • Would losing the fair-share dollars substantially weaken unions in Minnesota?
  • Are there long-term consequences cities could face in negotiations and grievance processing?
  • If fair-share fees go away as a result of Janus v. AFSCME, will public sector unions eventually be gone, too?

Cities will need to consider potential short-term and long-term impacts if the Janus decision goes as expected.

In the short term, cities may have to discontinue their fair-share payroll deductions upon release of the decision. In the long-term, the fair-share revenue loss for public unions may result in their resources being stretched tighter. This may impact a city’s ability to settle contracts expeditiously and work through grievances to voluntary resolution. Longer term, public unions may change their business model of representation. For example, will public unions decide smaller cities are no longer financially feasible for them to represent? Will public unions push for legislative changes at the state level next year, perhaps seeking a change in the ‘opt out’ process?

Participate in this webinar to:

  • Learn what the Janus decision means for your city’s payroll practices and union members
  • Understand what the Janus decision may mean long term for public sector unions
  • Discover the impact on your city if union resources are stretched thin
  • Have an opportunity to ask questions (Submit your questions to lmcwebinar@lmc.org)

Presenter: Susan Hansen, Attorney at Law, Madden Galanter Hansen, LLP

Who should attend: City administrators, human resources and labor relations staff, and elected officials who participate in labor negotiations

Fee: Free

Date/Time: July 11, 1-2 p.m.

You will be participating via the internet using GoToWebinar. An email confirmation with instructions to join the session will be sent after registration is completed.