TOPEKA — Labor attorney Jake Miller warned legislation characterized by a network of conservative think tanks as sound bookkeeping to comply with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling was actually a political overreach intended to deter participation in public employee unions in Kansas.
“To me, this is a waste of the committee’s time,” said Miller, who represents Working Kansas Alliance and practices labor law in Kansas City, Missouri. “Remember you’re going after cops, firefighters, corrections officers, electrical workers, snowplow drivers and everyone else.”
He told the House Commerce, Labor and Economic Development Committee there was no legitimacy to arguments by the Kansas Policy Institute, Illinois Policy Institute, Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Americans for Prosperity-Kansas and the Kansas Chamber of Commerce that the 2021 Legislature had to pass a law in response to Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. That 2018 ruling prohibited public-sector unions from requiring payment of fees by workers who weren’t union members, but were beneficiaries of union representation in terms of working conditions and compensation.
Miller’s point: Kansas has been a right-to-work state since 1958. Union participation is voluntary. Fees can’t be forced upon a nonmember. There have been no lawsuits tied to the court’s decision filed in Kansas.
No less than Janus v. AFSCME plaintiff Mark Janus, a senior fellow at the Illinois Policy Institute, weighed in to reject Miller’s analysis. Janus told legislators House Bill 2354 logically followed the Supreme Court’s affirmation the First Amendment was to be interpreted to mean public employees didn’t have to pay a government union as a condition of employment. The high court essentially brought right-to-work to public employees across the nation.
“I understand public-sector unions do not like this legislation. They will tell you it is burdensome for employees,” Janus said. “The proposal we’re discussing here today is important because it protects the rights that were restored by the Supreme Court’s decision in my case.”
Vincent Vernuccio, a senior fellow at the Mackinac Center in Michigan, said organizations around the country urging passage of legislation like the House bill in Kansas maintained that public employers could be compliant with Janus only after informing workers about their right to pay or not pay union fees and giving them a regular opportunity to renew their consent directly to the employer. That means a new payroll deduction form each year for purposes of paying union dues.
In addition, he said, public employees in Kansas and other states should be held responsible for allowing a person to exit a union and cease deduction of union fees or dues from paychecks at any time. Under the House bill, public employers and professional employee organizations would be responsible for reminding employees annually of their right to stop paying union dues.
“House Bill 2354 safeguards this right by ensuring that public employees are informed about their rights on a yearly basis and gives employees the opportunity to make a fresh choice on whether to pay the union annually,” Vernuccio said. “It guarantees employers have the required evidence of consent by having public employees tell their employers directly that they wish to pay union dues, instead of the employer taking the union’s word for it.”
Organizations opposed to the bill include the Kansas State Council of Fire Fighters, the Kansas State Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the Kansas Organization of State Employees, the Sheet Metal Air Rail and Transportation Workers, the League of Kansas Municipalities, the City of Wichita and the Unified Government of Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kansas.
