It’s been quite a few days for the Supreme Court.
First, they sided with anti-abortion right advocates in NIFLA v. Becerra.
Then they upheld Trump’s Muslim Travel Ban.
And most recently, in Janus v. AFSCME, the court ruled, in effect, that unions can no longer collect fees from non-union members, even though these non-members often benefit from the collective bargaining agreements fought for at significant cost by union leadership.
I’m no lawyer, nor am I privy to the nuanced arguments and analyses of the Janus case.
But I have been a member of a teachers union and have some experience with the educational landscape, both unionized and not.
So here’s what Janus means to me, at least in the few hours after the ruling’s return.
After the Muslim ban was upheld, I cannot trust this court to provide any sort of moral compass.
Indeed, it is not hyperbole to include that shameful decision alongside Dred Scott and Korematsu. As such, this court, which, it must be remembered, was illegally stacked by Mitch McConnell who refused to schedule hearings for President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, (so much for the conservative philosophy of strict interpretation of the constitution), has abdicated any benefit of the doubt.
This case isn’t about upholding the sanctity of the first amendment. Striking out at labor unions is a tried and true page out of the conservative playbook, often at the behest of businesses and at the expense of workers. This isn’t a free speech issue, it’s about deregulation and power. It’s yet another example of today’s GOP placing profits over people.
The Silver Lining in It All
But there can be a silver lining amongst the gloom.
Often, we take for granted, and under-value, that which we do not earn.
Unions, perhaps, could have gotten overly accustomed to the money that filled their coffers in the form of mandatory dues, and thus have forgotten precisely for whom they are meant to advocate.
In regards to the AFT and NEA specifically, the Janus case, while being a short-term misfortune, could perhaps create the opportunity to generate more unity amongst educational advocates, rather than resorting to the stale status quo that saw too many teachers unions, including my former representation here in Philadelphia, sow the seeds of discord along the lines of accountability, charter schools and seniority.
In essence, without the mandatory fees, the unions may now feel compelled to speak with, rather than shout down, those of us who see teachers unions too often working for the benefit of themselves and their members, rather than fighting for what’s best for kids.
Janus, to me, is yet another piece of horrible news in a week filled with horrible news.
But hopefully, this is the moment when, at the specter of depleted treasuries, teachers unions seek to unify the power of the educational community, rather than stigmatizing those of us who share common goals, if not common means.
Maybe a union that has to earn its members and their money, is a union I can support.