What the Supreme Court case on public unions means for California

Danica Alink, of McLean, Va., center, and Beth Feeley, of Wilmette, Illi., right, say the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of a rally supporting Mark Janus, outside of the Supreme Court, Monday, Feb. 26, 2018, in Washington. The Supreme Court takes up a challenge in a case that could deal a painful financial blow to organized labor. The court is considering a challenge to an Illinois law that allows unions representing government employees to collect fees from workers who choose not to join.(AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

Daniel DiSalvo, associate professor of political science at the City College of New York, joined host Ethan Bearman to talk about the huge implications of Janus v. AFSCME (American Federation of State and County Municipal Employees), a Supreme court case that has the potential to cripple public unions.

The high-profile case, which analyzes public unions’ rights to collect mandatory fees, has captured the attention of Americans for good reason. Over 10 million workers would be affected if the court rules in favor of Mark Janus, who is arguing the “fair share” fees, which often go to support a political agenda, violate his freedom of speech. The repercussions would be magnified in California, which is home to more union members than any other state.

Those in favor of the AFSCME have voiced the pulverization of public unions’ main source of funding would be devastating and ultimately result in sub-par salaries and benefits, however, DiSalvo, argues a victory for Janus could be beneficial, especially since other states, such as Virginia, with similar restrictions implemented have thrived. According to him, the decision could even bring down the cost of living in the notoriously expensive sunny state!  

Listen to the segment below to hear DiSalvo argue his point.

 

KGO Events