fbpx Skip to content

Stay Up to Date!

Zip Code
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Connecticut unions brace for Supreme Court decision with protests, membership changes

With a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Janus v. AFCSME case expected any day, Connecticut’s public sector unions are trying to convince members not to opt-out of membership if the Supreme Court decides in favor of Mark Janus.

The Connecticut State Employees Association and the American Federation of Teachers informed their members of a Freedom of Information request for union members’ contact information that originated out of Illinois.

Leaders say this information could be used for an opt-out campaign in the wake of a positive Janus decision.

“We expect these organizations use personal information obtained through FOI requests to send anti-union messages encouraging you to drop your union,” wrote Stephen Anderson, President of CSEA SEIU Local 2001 in an email to members. “Arming yourself with the knowledge of the Janus funders’ motives is the first step toward being prepared to resist their scheme.”

The Janus v. AFSCME case will determine whether public sector employees must pay agency fees to unions for collective bargaining costs, even though they opt out of union membership.

The agency fees are generally 80 to 90 percent of regular dues. The discount reflects the amount of money the union determines is devoted toward its political work.

Mark Janus — a public sector employee from Illinois — argues that because collective bargaining determines tax rates, the cost of government services and state and municipal budgets all public sector union work and bargaining is inherently political, therefore any fees paid to the unions pays for political work.

A decision in favor of Janus would essentially make Connecticut a right-to-work state for public sector employees, allowing government workers to opt out without paying any fees to unions. The decision would not affect unions in the private sector.

A similar case brought by California teacher Rebecca Friedrichs in 2016 tied 4-4 after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia left the Court evenly divided. With the appointment of Justice Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, many believe the court may rule in Janus’ favor.

While a positive Janus decision would only affect public employees, the public sector is the largest bastion of union power in the United States, and leaders worry a significant number of members will opt out if they no longer have to pay agency fees.

Leaders have cause to be concerned. A 2016 survey of union members across 27 states by the Nevada Policy Research Institute and the Association of American Educators showed nearly one-third would opt out of union membership.

The survey also showed that nearly 40 percent of members didn’t know they already could opt out of membership, although they would still have to pay agency fees.

Nearly half of those surveyed believed workers should have a choice whether or not to be part of a union.

In preparation for the decision some public sector unions across the country have tried to establish legislative fixes to prevent a loss of funds or altered members’ ability to opt out of the union, while others have warned of mass protest, strikes and “chaos.”

Shaun Richman, the former organizing director for AFT, said “If the Janus decision comes down as many of us fear then the proper response is to create chaos,” in an interview with In These Times, a labor-focused news website.

In Connecticut, union leaders attempted a small legislative fix through a “captive audience” bill, which would have prevented employers from discussing union issues with employees.

Although the bill would have primarily affected private businesses, it died after Attorney General George Jepsen issued an opinion stating the bill was pre-empted by federal labor law.

But some Connecticut unions are working behind the scenes to limit members’ ability to opt out.

Most state employee union contracts include a provision allowing members to opt-out and become agency fee payers with 30 days written notice. The latest wage contracts approved as part of the 2017 SEBAC Concessions Agreement largely left the opt-out language unchanged.

But unions like AFSCME and AFT-CT have established strict windows of time when a member can opt out by encouraging members to sign new union cards.

An AFSCME member can only opt out 10 days before or 20 days after “the end of any yearly period,” according to the union membership card, while AFT-CT members are limited to 15 days of their membership anniversary date.

The requirement may be difficult to meet if a member is unsure of their membership anniversary date, which differs from their date of hire. Both unions represent thousands of Connecticut municipal and state employees and teachers.

There also remains the possibility of protests in the wake of a positive Janus decision.

Union leaders held a rally on the steps of the Connecticut State Supreme Court in February to protest the Janus case as the Supreme Court heard oral arguments.

More recently, AFT-CT began sponsoring the Connecticut Poor People’s Campaign, which is engaged in protests held on Mondays throughout the country, known as “Moral Mondays,” to promote social justice issues.

AFT-CT is using the platform to promote union issues, as well. According to the AFT’s website, “This action will focus on defending public education and protecting union rights at a time when both are under attack.”

At a small rally outside the Legislative Office Building in Hartford on Monday, speaker Bishop John Selders of the Amistad United Church of Christ praised labor unions, while members of SEIU 1199 waved yellow flags.

Over the course of several weeks, protesters have blocked traffic on Capitol Avenue to bring attention to their cause. Numerous people — including AFT-CT President Jan Hochadel — participated in planned arrests.

The AFT-CT also joined a petition drive with the Action Network — an online organizing platform — “demanding candidates seeking our union’s support choose which side they’re on — Connecticut’s working families or the radical forces bent on silencing our voices,”

Although Supreme Court decisions are usually announced on Mondays, the Court said it will release two decisions on Thursday of this week.

Marc E. Fitch

Marc E. Fitch is the author of several books and novels including Shmexperts: How Power Politics and Ideology are Disguised as Science and Paranormal Nation: Why America Needs Ghosts, UFOs and Bigfoot. Marc was a 2014 Robert Novak Journalism Fellow and his work has appeared in The Federalist, American Thinker, The Skeptical Inquirer, World Net Daily and Real Clear Policy. Marc has a Master of Fine Arts degree from Western Connecticut State University. Marc can be reached at [email protected]


  1. Chris H.
    June 13, 2018 @ 8:24 pm

    I am so very lucky to have finished primary and secondary education prior to unions taking over the schools in my part of country. My mother was a biology teacher and felt that teaching was a calling, something she desire after having had a couple of excellent educators during her high school years that inspired her. She forewarned of the dangers she saw accompanying the unions as teachers began focusing on their needs rather than those of their students. With the trend being to tell the students what to think rather than educating them on how to think critically it might be too late to help our public schools escape the downward spiral of union domination.


  2. Jim Sawhill
    June 14, 2018 @ 7:44 am

    Unions in Connecticut forget that people are moving to right to work states. I was at the anti income tax rally at Hartford and I told people that Connecticut is going to spend more. In 2005, I was transferred to Florida and now we are in Tennessee. Connecticut, citizens are voting with their feet. Cut taxes, cut spending and make the state business friendly. Hope citizens will wake up and elect pro business politicians.


  3. Harry T
    June 14, 2018 @ 10:41 am

    Public sector unions should be abolished.


  4. ChrisC
    June 14, 2018 @ 2:40 pm

    Public unions are essentially politcal monopolies with complete leverage and control over how to spend significant portions of public tax money. When it comes to the Janus case, they even sound like a political party with sound bites and talking points that are really creative spin. It appears that the only people who like and support unions are those who directly benefit from membership or liberal democrats. I would be surprised if this doesn’t go Janus’ way; this about an individuals freedom of association and freedom to choose. And if it does go Janus’ way, the Unions may find themselves reverting back to their original model/purpose of focusing on members at the local level and less as a major player in state and federal government politics. And please don’t tell me that need teacher’s unions to lobby for education funding at the state and national level.


  5. Greencollar Worker
    June 14, 2018 @ 6:50 pm

    Those who fought and died for all worker’s rights must be turning in their graves. Congratulations, willful idiots!


  6. Shawn Callahan
    June 20, 2018 @ 11:05 am

    If being in a union is so advantageous to workers, why do unions require workers to be a member or pay at least 70% union dues? If it’s so awesome, why do you have to force people to be in the union?

    People are not stupid and dont need to be forced into membership. Provide a overiding reason and people will gladly join and pay union dues.


  7. MyWorldSecur
    June 20, 2018 @ 1:42 pm

    Union leaders are careful to say that they’re always trying to recruit more members, but some of them acknowledged those efforts are taking on greater intensity this year. The idea is to get workers in the union fold now and have a better chance of keeping them there if the court decision makes membership optional.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *