STAND with Kelly and Niki Tshibaka

#22: Mark Janus

• Kelly Tshibaka and Niki Tshibaka

Share episode

Little did Mark Janus know when stepped into his role as a state employee in Illinois that his discomfort with mandatory union agency fees would catapult him into a historic Supreme Court case. Our conversation with Mark reveals the immense personal courage required to challenge deeply entrenched systems, and it's a journey that reshaped the landscape of workers' rights in America. 

The legal intricacies of Janus v. AFSCME are mind-bending, but Mark's narrative makes them accessible, illuminating the human story behind the headlines. He endured intimidation and death threats, yet stood firm, driven by the belief that individual freedoms should never be compromised. Mark's tale is not just about legal victory; it's a powerful lesson on the transformative power of standing up for one's rights. Join us for a profound exploration of conviction, sacrifice, and the enduring spirit of the American worker.

Subscribe to never miss an episode of STAND:
YouTube
Apple Podcasts
Spotify

STAND's website: • StandShow.org
Follow Kelly Tshibaka on
Twitter: https://twitter.com/KellyForAlaska
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/KellyForAlaska
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/kellyforalaska/

Kelly Tshibaka:

Welcome to Stand your community of everyday American heroes. I'm your host, kelly Tshibaka, a former government watchdog and candidate for US Senate in Alaska. I'm joined by my co-host and husband, extraordinaire Niki Tshibaka, who formerly served as an employment law trial attorney in the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division. We're broadcasting today from Alaska's last frontier and we're here to equip and empower you to stand up to life's challenges, one episode at a time. Hey, let's give a shout out to our community of standouts who help make this show possible. Subscribe to our show on your favorite podcast platform or on YouTube at the Stand Show. Tell your friends to follow us on social media. At Kelly for Alaska, make sure to share this episode with a friend and this week we're giving out a free Hydro Flask sticker for Stand. If you want to be entered to win, make sure to leave a review on your favorite platform of choice and you could be that lucky audience member who gets a free sticker.

Kelly Tshibaka:

Today we are joined by an ordinary American who did an extraordinary thing by standing for our constitutional rights Mark Janus. Mark was one of more than 5 million government workers whose First Amendment rights were being violated. Government workers whose First Amendment rights were being violated, and in the face of tremendous pressure and opposition he took that fight all the way to the US Supreme Court and he won. So today we get to hear that story. It was one of the most significant Supreme Court decisions of our lifetime. Mark, thank you so much for joining us today.

Mark Janus:

Oh, glad to be here, Kelly.

Kelly Tshibaka:

We're excited to have you with us, so let's start off with getting to know a little bit more about you. The battle you took on required a ton of courage, so tell us, where did your courage come from?

Mark Janus:

Well, I would say, for the most part it came from my father and all my time in as a scout as a youth Became an Eagle Scout, where I learned a lot about perseverance, I learned a lot about courage, I learned a lot about public service. And then also my father, who you know, told me that during high school and even before that, he said you know, if you can't do it right the first time, when are you going to have time to do it again? And it stayed with me the whole time, which is why I took on this fight, why it came to the fulfillment of what we all hope will give many, many public sector workers the freedom to make their own choice and exercise their First Amendment rights.

Niki Tshibaka:

Yeah, you really hit on an important point there, mark, that I really appreciate you emphasizing, which is this was one of the most important free speech cases of our generation the Janus case that's named after you. This was ultimately about free speech. It wasn't about anti-union, it was about freedom of speech. Speech. It wasn't about anti-union, it was about freedom of speech. I want to just follow up on what Kelly just asked you and sort of dig a little deeper.

Niki Tshibaka:

The Bible tells the story of a young shepherd boy named David, who many people are familiar with, whether they're Christians or not. They know the story of King David of Israel and we know that he slew this giant named Goliath with a sling and a stone. But before David was a giant slayer, he was a shepherd's boy tending to his father's flocks, and he talks about how he killed a lion and he killed a bear to protect his flocks, and that prepared him and equipped him for facing the giant Goliath that he would later face. Whether it's your childhood or your young adult days, when you had to take a bold stand with your metaphorical slingshot and a stone to take out a lion or a bear, that you feel helped prepare you for that battle before the Supreme Court.

Mark Janus:

Well, I would have to say it again, goes back to my scouting days, you know, learning to be out in the wilderness fending for myself and having to complete a whole variety of tasks in order to earn that highest rank. And it was during a time that scouts may not have been the in thing or the vogue thing at the time. That scouts was may not have been the in thing or the vogue thing at the time, uh, and people were always, uh, you know, detracting from it. Uh, even though it was very popular, uh, there were still the detractors and the idea that you can stay with it when you've got, especially when you get into high school, you know, when you're starting to get into cars and thinking down the road for college and you're also, you know, starting to date and, you know, become familiar with your friends and making fast friendships last your whole life. I would say that perseverance and that continuation to get to that ultimate goal was probably the thing that led to what I did and when I did it.

Kelly Tshibaka:

Yeah, so Mark Niki and I are familiar with your story, but let's get our audience up to speed. Can you walk us through your career? Where you started in your career? Where were you? What was your job when you filed your first lawsuit? How did this all start?

Mark Janus:

Well, it all started back in when I joined the state of Illinois as a child support specialist and during the initial HR intake. You know you're you're signing all kinds of forms. You know you're signing all kinds of forms. You know you begin to, you know, want to get into the job, you want to begin to learn the ropes and the like. And of course, naturally you're also looking for that first paycheck. Well, that first paycheck had a line item deduction, rather than with all your taxes and pension, health care etc.

Mark Janus:

And it says that I was paying union dues. Well, that's what I thought was odd, because I never signed a union pledge card, nobody ever said anything to me about joining the union. So why am I paying union dues? Asked around to my peers and they said oh yeah, you have to pay the union in order to work here for the state of Illinois. If you don't pay the union, you can't hold your job. Well, I thought originally that was ludicrous, quite frankly. I mean, why do I have to pay somebody to have a job? That to me just doesn't make sense at all. But the idea of trying to do a good job, you know, trying to do what I needed to do as a child support specialist. I kind of put that on the back burner and kind of forgot about it for a number of years about it for a number of years.

Kelly Tshibaka:

Well, why did you have to pay a union to have your job?

Mark Janus:

especially if you didn't sign anything. Well, because unions, a number of years ago, went to the state legislature and they set up a law that said if you work for the state of Illinois and you're under a government collective bargaining unit with your job title, I had to pay approximately 80% of full membership dues, which, quite frankly, there was only the difference of maybe about $6 every paycheck, and therefore I was covered under that collective bargaining agreement and therefore the union spoke on my behalf, even if I didn't want them to. And that was all because the state of Illinois passed a law in cahoots with the union, the public sector unions like AFSCME.

Kelly Tshibaka:

So you weren't part of the union, you weren't technically a union member, but they were representing you and bargaining for you, even if you didn't ask them to and didn't want them to.

Mark Janus:

Correct, yes because I was covered under that job. Yeah, I was covered under that job title, and there were hundreds and hundreds of job titles within the state of Illinois.

Kelly Tshibaka:

That was covered under a much larger collective bargaining contract with the state of Illinois. Okay, and so then you've learned this. You think it's. That's, by the way, not an insignificant amount of money that we're talking about. I oversaw personnel for the state of Alaska and all the bargaining agreements, and taking that much money out of somebody's paycheck multiple times a year actually adds up to a significant amount of money by the end of the year. So you go back to being a child support specialist, so you're working on getting kids the money that they need in order to live, and go back to being a government civil servant employee for many years. This goes on for over a decade and the Illinois State government is taking your money and passing it along to AFSCME. Is that all correct?

Mark Janus:

That is correct. Yes, they basically treated me like an ATM machine. That's how I put it, and the reason I say that is because the money kept coming out of my paycheck going to the union and I didn't have any say in the matter. I had no choice and I had no voice.

Niki Tshibaka:

Did you have other people with whom you were interacting who were also covered under that collective bargaining agreement, who felt like they had no choice either and struggled with that?

Mark Janus:

either and struggled with that At the time. No, that wasn't discussed, and that information was not forthcoming. What I did learn, though, is, after I filed the case, and we eventually went to the Supreme Court, I found there was much greater support than what I had originally thought. I thought, well, there's a few people here and there that might do it, but in the end, there was a much greater percentage than what I had even thought about, or even considered.

Kelly Tshibaka:

That's interesting. So this group of non-union employees who are forced to pay a large percentage of fees because of Illinois law. These are called agency fees or fair share fees. So let's pause our discussion with you there and we'll pick up after the break. We're with Mark Janus, who this story eventually becomes a US Supreme Court case, and we want to hear how you went from being a government worker to a precedent setting US Supreme Court case. And we want to hear how you went from being a government worker to a precedent-setting US Supreme Court case on the First Amendment. After this, thanks for taking a stand, mark.

Kelly Tshibaka:

Stand by You're with Stand with Niki and Kelly Tshibaka. Welcome back to Stand where ordinary Americans can do extraordinary things, just like Mark Janus, who is with us today. Mark, we're hearing your story about how you became a government employee who took your work issue all the way to the US Supreme Court. We just heard about how you are not a union employee but you were being forced to pay what we call agency fees to the union that had the collective bargaining agreements for the government employees in Illinois. One of the things that happened there is these fair share fees or agency fees. They were often being used to support political activities and speech that really went against things that you believed. So one of the first questions we want to talk to you about is what did it feel like for you to be forced to pay for political activities of an organization you weren't a member of and for things that you didn't believe of an organization you weren't a member of and for things that you didn't believe?

Mark Janus:

Well, quite frankly, I was upset. I mean, here's my funds taken out of my paycheck and it's going to fund an organization that is setting policy, making policy and providing information to its members that, quite frankly, I didn't agree with and that I didn't want to be a part of For example, endorsing political candidates for office at all levels, from the city to the county, to the state and even on the national scene, and trying to tell me that I had to vote in a particular way because that's the candidate they endorsed, which I didn't agree with. Everybody has the right to a private ballot when they walk into the voting booth, but here was the pressure from the union, with political information being put on my desk at work, or emails that were sent to me, or flyers that were put in my mailbox by union members.

Kelly Tshibaka:

And I just quite frankly felt violated in many different types of various ways. You should know my union is supporting your opponent, but I don't know anybody in the workers who support your opponent. We're all voting for you. I'm sorry that our union leadership is supporting your opponent and our money is going that way, but don't worry about it, all of us are voting for you. So it's exactly like how you're describing.

Kelly Tshibaka:

I think it's important to share that. You know, niki and I don't oppose unions. They serve an important role for workers' rights because you accept a union job or a paycheck. So we should all be standing with every worker who wants to control how their paycheck is used. That's what workers are supposed to have protected, especially their paycheck. So, as your story progresses in your situation, the governor of Illinois ends up suspending the collection of these agency fees the thing that was coming out of your situation. The governor of Illinois ends up suspending the collection of these agency fees the thing that was coming out of your paycheck from non-union members, which applies to you directly when he did that. Tell us what happens in your situation. Does the union just follow the executive order of the governor and stop collecting agency fees or start seeking consent from you in order to continue collecting agency fees. What practically happens when the governor makes that move?

Mark Janus:

Well, what he did is he filed his own case against the union. But when it got into court, the court said that he did not have standing because, being a public official, such as a governor, he was not having to pay any of these fees, agency fees or otherwise. So the court felt that because he didn't have standing. That's where then my case came to the forefront, and the case that we filed at the federal level in Chicago, at the circuit level, was allowed to stand, if you will, and was allowed to continue because I was a union payer, even though I did not want to be a union member. So therefore, there was that idea that the court could continue to hear my case and how we continue to pursue it and continue to argue it.

Niki Tshibaka:

Mark, let me ask you following up on that. I have another question, but I think this is an important setup for the question I'm going to ask how did they identify you, or how did you yourself get involved in this issue, Because, theoretically, it could have been anyone who shared your views and your concerns. So how did you get into this mix? Was it something that you sort of raised your hand and said hey, I volunteer me, or were you approached?

Mark Janus:

How did that all happen? Well, it was somewhat of a how shall I say? A combination, if you will, niki. What happened was I had an attorney friend of mine that knew I was very upset with having to pay these union agency fees, even though I was not a member. He put me in contact with the folks at the Liberty Justice Center. They're a public interest law firm and they fight for people's First Amendment rights. We began a conversation, a dialogue, and came to the agreement that they would represent me in filing a case against AFSCME and it's an acronym but it's the American Federation of State, county and Municipal Employees, and they are one of the largest public sector unions across the United States, unions across the United States.

Mark Janus:

We filed our case in the federal court in Chicago and, of course, we promptly lost, which was very disheartening and I thought, well, okay, this is over with. We then said, no, they told me it was good, because then we could go on to the appellate level, and we lost there also. So now I'm getting really discouraged. Well, then they said, oh, no, this is good, we're going to go to the Supreme Court. And that's where I kind of had to sit down and take a deep breath because I said we're going to Washington DC and the United States Supreme Court with this case and they said oh, yeah, yeah, and we think we have a good chance of winning.

Niki Tshibaka:

That's so cool. A lot of people, Mark, would have just let it go, Just be honest. They would have just said themselves this isn't worth the risk or the fight.

Niki Tshibaka:

I don't want to risk my career fight. I don't want to risk my career. I don't want to risk the disapproval and the conflict with my colleagues at work or other union members. Better just keep my head down, collect my paycheck, suck it up and push through and then take my retirement. On the other end, why, ultimately, did you say you know what? No, I'm going to take a stand here Because, even though this organization is immensely powerful and this could really cost me, I believe this is important enough that it's worth the risk. What was it that got you to that point? Was it just having an organization say, hey, we'll represent you pro bono? What led you to that ultimately?

Mark Janus:

Well, I think a big part of it was what I saw within state government and the office that I was working, and I saw people that could not do their jobs but they could never get fired, even though their supervisors had a stack of information that if it was in the private sector American business, they would have been long gone. But the union comes in, they protect them and they stay in those jobs. Well then I also saw other people that plain just were sloths and yeah, they did the minimal amount of work just enough to get by, but they really weren't doing the job to their utmost, to what they were designed for. And then I saw lots of other things going on and the bottom line was is that if I was a taxpayer and I saw all this waste going on and taxes are going to these people that aren't doing their jobs, I would be incensed. And of course it's a common how shall I say common knowledge that government is very wasteful and I think we all know that, but nobody really gets down to the bottom line as to how come it's wasteful, what happens with your tax dollars, that when you pay your taxes, where they go?

Mark Janus:

And I think a really good book that everybody should read is Not Accountable and it's by Phil Howard. He documents immensely the waste of government and how government union contracts are. So I'm trying to search for a word here, and I'm trying to search for a word here. They go down to the minutiae that a supervisor can't even, you know, do any kind of supervision of his workers because it would then may go against the contract. It might be kind of a long winded response to your question, but over all of those things is what got me you know my dander up and got the hackles on the back of my head and said this has just got to stop. We cannot continue down this path.

Kelly Tshibaka:

We just can't. It sounds like if we were to sum up the story, you would say paychecks are worth protecting, workers' paychecks are worth protecting, and where your dollar goes this dollar, that $10, this $10, it actually makes a difference. We saw that recently with people's choices to stop supporting Bud Light. Right, everybody's micro choices actually had a macro consequence and you came to that conclusion years before. If I take a stand for my micro paycheck, it actually represents a macro decision. And that's what you were seeing when you said I don't want to support this behavior, I don't want to support these communications, I'm going to do something about it. And that motivated you to take a stand. My dad would always say hey, kid, if you think something needs to be done, stop pointing the the finger. The person who probably needs to do it is you and mark kind of sounds like that's the conclusion you came to and you're challenging all of us to come to.

Kelly Tshibaka:

We'll be back after this break with mark Janus. Stand by. Welcome back to stand with kelly and niki Tshibaka. You'll find us on youtube at the stand show. Follow us on your favorite podcast channel. Mark Janus, thanks so much for being with us today. We've been talking about your fight for workers rights all the way up to the supreme court. Niki, you had a great question. We were just talking about.

Niki Tshibaka:

Yeah, mark, I wanted to ask you even though you took a stand for workers' rights I mean, that was what you were doing, you were taking a stand for workers' rights You've been wrongfully demeaned and even threatened as a union buster. The union that was supposed to protect and represent you turned against you simply because you were standing for the fundamental constitutional right to free speech. Can you share with us about that experience? What happened and how did it affect you and your family? The backlash Can you describe what happened and its impact on you guys?

Mark Janus:

Well, initially I didn't tell anybody what I was doing. I didn't even tell my own mother because, number one, I didn't know what kind of backlash I would receive, if any and I knew there probably would be and not knowing the outcome of what was going to happen, there's no point in making a big deal out of it and then you get disappointed. But at the time that the petition went to the Supreme Court and then they accepted it and said they would hear the case, well, that was all over the news on a national basis, so it was a little hard to keep it quiet at that point. So that's when the union really got on my case with news articles, all kinds of op-ed pieces, et cetera, et cetera. And the people at work. That was surprising because, even though they didn't overtly come out, but I could tell by looks, I could tell by people that I used to talk to all the time now just wouldn't even speak to me. I'd have people that I'd meet in the hallway and they'd kind of brush up against me, you know like, eh, you bum, you know type of thing, and you know, so it was.

Mark Janus:

You know they thought I was basically a pariah is what it boiled down to, and kind of an interesting sidebar to that is that I eventually did tell my mother I was going to the Supreme Court, I was handling this case, and of course she, you know, pondered that for a second and then she said you know what, mark? You know what they did to Jimmy Hoffa? That's comforting, you know. Yeah, well, you know, thanks for the support. Of course my two children were very much in support and said that they supported me, of course, and the like, but they were somewhat concerned, but I kept their names totally quiet and my whole family totally quiet because obviously I didn't want anybody coming after them and the like.

Mark Janus:

So there was a time, also during this process, when I had a lady come to my house and she put a post-it note on my door in the middle of the night it was like 2 or 3 am and it said I told you, we knew where you lived and of course we know that it was a lady. And it was a time because I had installed some security cameras at the front door, the back door and a security system and we went back and replayed the tape, went to the authorities and they said well, we really can't do anything, because you didn't have any no trespassing signs up, so you're kind of on your own in that regard, but that was the only thing that happened then, of course, there was a couple other instances after the court decision came down in my favor. That you know, things got a little more ugly in that regard.

Kelly Tshibaka:

How did it get more ugly?

Mark Janus:

Well, after the decision, I was in New Mexico talking to people and trying to promote what's now known as Janus Rights, and I found out that there was a gentleman up in the state of Washington that had posted on Facebook that he proposed that somebody ought to go out and try to kill me, and he did not get any takers on it. So he posted again and said well, I guess I'll have to do it myself, and after I do, I think I'm going to eat his brains, because I bet you they taste good. Well, obviously, this guy was not totally all there, so the FBI got involved and eventually the gentleman was arrested and so on, but he had also made threats against Trump at the time and other public officials, so he wasn't singling me out, but it was still very disturbing nonetheless, of course.

Kelly Tshibaka:

Well, I'm sorry, mark, I imagine that wasn't theling me out, but it was still very disturbing nonetheless, of course. Well, I'm sorry, mark, I imagine that wasn't the only death threats you got.

Mark Janus:

No, well, if there were others, I'm not aware of them and you know, but I think the union knew that if anything did happen to me, physically or otherwise, quite frankly, it would probably go against them in a big way, in a very negative way. So I think they kind of put the word out to lay off any kind of physical threats or other types of threats, and they mainly did it through newspaper media, that sort of threats, and they mainly did it through, you know, newspaper media, that sort of thing.

Niki Tshibaka:

Well, can we follow up? I want to move to something a little bit more lighthearted.

Kelly Tshibaka:

Yeah, that was the downside of it.

Niki Tshibaka:

That was tough.

Kelly Tshibaka:

Everyone knows taking a stand comes at a cost. Yeah, but they don't.

Niki Tshibaka:

they often don't see the cost or hear about the cost. They hear the sort of the heroic side of the story, right, the happy ending, so to speak, but they don't often hear what it took to get there. And that's why it was important to ask those questions and thank you, Mark, for being so open about it. What was it like, you know, when you got to the Supreme Court? Tell us a little bit about that.

Mark Janus:

Well, when I actually got to the Supreme Court, you know, of course there were when we walked in there was lots of, you know, protesters and others not a large amount, but some and quite frankly it was just overwhelming. You know, here I am walking into the Supreme Court building as a plaintiff in a lawsuit and going into the courtroom, which is packed, because every time the court has oral arguments, lots of attorneys, lots of media and the like. And here I was introduced to the governor of Illinois, I was introduced to Betsy DeVos, Secretary of Education, and other notables and quite frankly it was just overwhelming. But when Justice Roberts called my case, to hear your name called by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court just kind of blows your mind, if you will.

Mark Janus:

And then, as the arguments proceeded, when you hear the arguments back and forth and let me clarify something, a lot of people for people, the Supreme Court, when they hear a case, it's more like a debate. It's not what you see on Law Order or some of these other TV shows. My attorney would get up and make some presentation. He would be interrupted by a justice and asked a question. He would then continue his remarks and then maybe another justice would interrupt, and we go that way on both sides. They would interrupt the union side, they would interrupt my side, and it's a debate. It's back and forth and back and forth.

Niki Tshibaka:

Quite fascinating really, but also very much a blur orderly, respectful way, debate the issues and the justices listen, ask probing questions, then they debate amongst themselves, they argue amongst themselves and then they draft their opinions with their justifications for them. For me, it's a beautiful process when you see justice work out in that way, even if the outcomes aren't always what we might want them to be in a particular case.

Kelly Tshibaka:

Yeah, there's dignity in process. So, mark, we know that you're not a lawyer and there's a lot of debate about all this. However, you were pretty close to the case and you've lived this out. What's your take on what the court decided in this 5-4 ruling?

Mark Janus:

Yeah, Well, I think what they decided, and the main point, is that if you are a union member, you give up your First Amendment rights to that union and to that authority and the administration or the officers of that union, and they speak on your behalf.

Mark Janus:

If you are not a member of the union, you retain those First Amendment rights. You can speak for yourself and you can make your own decisions, and that is the basic context of the case that each individual employee, worker, whatever you want to call yourself, you have that right to make your own decision. However, once you become a member of a union, you lose that right, you give it up, and that's why, in the decision that Justice Alito wrote, he said you must be given the ability to make that decision for yourself, and it has to be declarative, it has to be clear and you have to be informed of your rights. Now, as an example, we're all familiar with Miranda rights. I mean, if an individual is arrested, they are read their rights. Well, why is it when a new hire goes into a government office, why is it that they're not given the same rights, such as what's now known as Janus rights? Why are they not given those rights?

Kelly Tshibaka:

Just like your point when you said I didn't realize. I ever gave that up.

Mark Janus:

Yeah, and so that is the only thing that is there. However, unions don't like that idea. They don't like the idea that you have a right to make your own decision. They want to make it for you.

Kelly Tshibaka:

Let's pause there. That's an important point to take up after this break. Make sure to subscribe to the Stand Show on YouTube or Stand with Nkki and Kelly on your favorite podcast platform. We are with Mark Janus, the gentleman who is an ordinary worker, who took his case all the way up to the Supreme Court to fight for workers' rights, and we will be back right after this on Stand. Welcome back to Stand, where the Supreme Court is just another day in the journey. We're with Mark Janus, who took his fight all the way to the Supreme Court. We're hearing how his normal everyday workday turned into an epic day at the Supreme Court.

Kelly Tshibaka:

Mark, you just told us about that story, but I want to pick up the conversation where we just left off. Interestingly, you were telling us your understanding of the Supreme Court case. You've been going around talking about Janus' rights and you were telling us your understanding of the Supreme Court case. You've been going around talking about Janus rights and you were saying that every worker has an option to either join the union or not join the union. But if you join the union, you are yielding your First Amendment rights to the union. The union now gets to speak on your behalf. And the court said they basically need to be given notice of that when they take the job. Almost like you're given Miranda rights those are now called your quote Janus rights and you're having, you're doing education around the country trying to implement that.

Kelly Tshibaka:

I wanted to ask a little bit how is that implementation going? How is the? This case came out like five years ago, right, and how's the catch going? We know Niki and I went to law school. Sometimes the court does something like Brown versus Board of Education the integration of schools, getting rid of segregation but that doesn't mean it happens right away. So how's Janus Rights going?

Mark Janus:

Well, it's kind of a tough road, kelly, and that's primarily because the unions are doing everything they can to circumvent the decision. For example, on the day of the decision in 2018, governor Jerry Brown in California signed a new piece of law into effect that states that if an individual that's a member of the union goes to a supervisor and asks well, can I get some more information about this, janus rights and what's it all about, the supervisor cannot talk to him about that under penalty of law, and the supervisor is to direct him to the union. Now, what could possibly go wrong with that idea or scenario? In the state of Illinois, for example, they passed a law that said that the union gets a mandatory meeting with every new hire at the beginning of the intake process. However, is the other side, such as my side, if you will be given the right to explain to people they do not have to join and they do not necessarily have to sign that union card? No, it's all one-sided, and there are other states besides Illinois that have done the same thing across the country, and the unions have done everything they can to circumvent the process, even to the point of if you did want to try to resign and get out of the union, or what's now known as opt-out.

Mark Janus:

Unions make it incredibly difficult out. Unions make it incredibly difficult. They put in all kinds of what's known as windows where you can only withdraw from the union, you know, maybe for a particular two-week period, one month out of the year. So, in essence, what you're doing is you're giving up your rights for 50 weeks out of the year and only being able to exercise those rights for two weeks out of the year, and only being able to exercise those rights for two weeks out of the year. Now let me suggest that if somebody had that same right that's within the Constitution, let's say the Second Amendment or any other of the rights that we are offered there would be a total uproar, unbelievable uproar, that you can only allow your rights to be exercised two weeks out of an entire year. I mean, it's abominable. Let's think of it that way.

Kelly Tshibaka:

Well, it's interesting to hear your take because I remember when I served in the cabinet for the governor of Alaska, I was in charge of personnel and I was in charge of implementing Janus decision, and so we were supposed to change our rules to require a directive, that we got direct communication from the employees like a card, just like you're saying where they said they wanted their union fees deducted from their paycheck. So they directed me and our HR department yes, please deduct my union dues. So that we didn't assume that they wanted their First Amendment rights violated, and immediately the unions filed lawsuits against us putting a stay on that. And until it's resolved, the fees were continuing to be automatically deducted from the government and no notice was being given to our employees that their First Amendment rights were being ceded over to their unions and their paychecks were automatically being deducted for all their agency dues. I thought it was a little bit weird because as a government authority, I'm sitting here and the paychecks coming out of my finance department. Before it ever hits my employees, I'm reaching in, pulling out dues and then handing it to a third-party organization. I'm not taking out their PTA dues or their gym membership dues or their membership to anything else, their country club or anything else? We would think that that would be absurd, right? Government doesn't act as your third-party dues collector, managing your paycheck deductions for everything. It just didn't seem logical to me. To me, if your union is doing its job of representing you well, serving its client base just like any other organization, then it can manage collecting its dues from its client base just like every other organization. Right? There was this huge fight that came up, just like they did with you.

Kelly Tshibaka:

All of a sudden, I was a union buster because I was trying to implement the Janus decision, but it didn't make any sense to me. There's nothing union busting about it. Why are you getting government involved in a relationship between an employee and its organization that, for all other purposes, government's required to stay out of? We're not allowed to communicate with the employees about anything going on between anything that could be related between the union and the employees. That's a very protected relationship under labor rights law. I thought the whole thing was really interesting. What was your response to criticisms about union busting, because you've been dealing with this now for several years? How do you address that, when it seems like your intent as a government worker was to protect union rights. You deal with this with the Janus Rights advocacy that you're doing now, but you were dealing with it even when you were an employee. For people who are listening who might want to take a stand on this issue, how would you equip them with responses to allegations or accusations that they're union busting?

Mark Janus:

Well, I think it's the idea that the union business model, if you want to use that analogy, is so outdated and their usefulness in some areas has been put into federal and state and local statutes, such as how many hours in a work week. We have OSHA for company safety, we have health care that's been implemented and so on and so forth. These are all fights that have been won back, you know, back in the 20s and the 30s and the like. But yet I found it very interesting that the union bulletin board at my work had a big poster that said it was the union that gave you the 40-hour work with and gave you health care and gave you this, this, this and this. Well, yeah, they did back in the 20s and 30s, but they're still trying to take credit for it and the like and their business model has now turned more to politics and policy and keeping their power, keeping that ATM machine running, if you will, so that they can back the candidates to support them.

Mark Janus:

For example, out of every dollar that a union collects in dues, less than 20 cents of that dollar actually goes to wage and benefit negotiations. The balance of it, or close to 80 cents, goes to some overhead and the administration of the union. But the majority of it goes to political purposes and it also can be used not necessarily on a dollar-for-dollar basis, but it can also be used as an in-kind basis. So let's say that you're running for office. You can have a whole bunch of union workers out there putting up signs, going door-to-door, canvassing, et cetera. That amount to more than millions of dollars in additional funds. If you want to put a dollar figure on it, it's over and above what they collect in dues. And if you also look at where this money goes, it's primarily, you know, to the progressive left and it's primarily to an area that I believe a lot of union members just don't ascribe to. But they're kind of caught between a rock and a hard place.

Kelly Tshibaka:

That's a really good point, and we know that you're still in the fight. You're still fighting for workers' rights and taking on more Goliaths. Can you tell us what are you doing now and what can our audience do to support your work?

Mark Janus:

Well, I would say the best thing you can do to support my work is just be an informed citizen. Be aware that you have what's now known as Janus rights, that you can opt out of your union and not have to pay dues. If that's a decision you want to make, it's totally up to you. But the other part is, you know, if you want to support we have Liberty Justice Center, who is the company that I now work for. The law firm I should say you know we're still fighting cases all across the United States trying to give workers their rights.

Mark Janus:

We represented a young lady in the Chicago area that came over from Barcelona, spain, was going to teach Spanish as a second language. She went through the usual intake. The union said, oh yeah, an, yeah, an ordered teacher, you got to become a member of the union. Well, she didn't know she's from another country, uh, but she did learn that she didn't have to pay. She went to the union and said you know I don't have to pay, I want to get out. I said, oh no, no, that's all right. Yeah, we'll let you out, but you're still going to have to pay anyway.

Mark Janus:

Mark let me pause you there. Totally against the decision that the Supreme Court is making.

Kelly Tshibaka:

Exactly those are the kind of cases Liberty Justice Institute's taking on, and we're so grateful to have you with us today, mark. Thank you so much. Thank you for sharing with us about your fight. You can find us on at the stand show on YouTube. Make sure to share this episode with many people to get Mark Janus's story out there and subscribe to our show. Stand with Kelly Niki Tshibaka. We're so grateful, mark, that you took a stand for workers rights and our first amendment. Thank you so much for being with us today and standouts. We'll catch you next week on stand.

People on this episode

Contributor

Kelly Tshibaka

Host
Contributor

Niki Tshibaka

Host