Just over two weeks since the ruling in the Janus v. AFSCME case, about a third of the affected states have taken actions meant to soften its impact on unions’ membership and revenue.
In fact, even before the U.S. Supreme Court made the decision in June, some states were making moves to soften its potential blow to unions financial status, Governing reports.
In May, New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy signed a bill that limits the window of time during which government employees can withdraw from their union. They now have just 10 days a year to make that decision.
The ruling in the case makes it illegal to require public workers who choose not to join the union to pay so-called agency fees to the unions that represent them in collective bargaining negotiations. It immediately impacts 21 states, Democrat-led groups are trying to dampen the decision’s effects.
“There is a menu of different options that states can pursue depending on their appetite for supporting public-sector unions,” says Alexander Hertel-Fernandez, an assistant professor of international and public affairs at Columbia University who studies the politics of organized labor in the United States.
One other approach that of New Jersey’s has been to permit unions to stop offering some services to non-members, creating two-tier representation that offers an advantage to membership.
For example, Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo signed two bills in early July to let police unions stop representing non-members in grievance cases. New York tucked a similar rule — for all state employees — into its 2019 budget, which was signed in March.
Some states have passed legislation to help unions make their case for membership to new employees. California, Maryland and Washington state now guarantee unions full access to hiring orientation sessions so they can explain the advantages of membership. California and Washington, as well as New Jersey, also prohibit public employers from discouraging membership.
