Mark Janus is an Illinois state government non-union employee who didn’t want to fork over union fees and became the face — and name — of a lawsuit that made its way to the nation’s highest court.
And on Wednesday the U.S. Supreme Court not only sided with him, but handed Gov. Bruce Rauner a political victory at the same time.
Some background: Janus joined a lawsuit initially filed by Rauner against American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, balking at paying so-called “fair share” fees that are collected from every state worker for collective bargaining and other work the union does on behalf of all employees in the workplace.
“It will not affect the collective bargaining,” Janus said at a news conference Wednesday morning. “Unions will have that continued right. It’s just that the worker now has the ability to make his own decision or her decision, and that’s why I brought this case. It’s up to the worker to decide what they want for themselves, not some other large entity.”
Here’s a quick look at the man behind Wednesday’s Supreme Court ruling, that could undercut public worker unions nationwide.
So who is Mark Janus?
Mark Janus, 65, of Springfield, is a child support specialist at the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, according to the state comptroller’s website. The department oversees child support cases by establishing paternity, enforcing orders and collecting payments. Janus reviews the court orders that come through the office to ensure they are being followed. He previously worked in the private sector before returning to the public sector in 2007, according to a website from the Liberty Justice Center.
In a 2016 opinion column published in the Chicago Tribune, Janus described his job as advocating for children.
Why did he sue?
Actually, Rauner originally filed the federal lawsuit challenging the fees in 2015. Even back then, Rauner had aspirations for the case to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court, because he believed the collection of the fees was a violation of the First Amendment. Eventually, three state workers — including Janus — joined the case.
Janus objected to the roughly $45 taken out of his paycheck each month that went to the AFSCME, though he is not a member.
“When I was hired by the state of Illinois, no one asked if I wanted a union to represent me,” Janus wrote in his 2016 Tribune column. “I only found out the union was involved when money for the union started coming out of my paychecks.”
Illinois and about two dozen other states require its workers to pay the fees, even if they aren’t in the union. The money is supposed to be earmarked for the union’s expenses related to negotiating new contracts and handling grievances on behalf of workers, not to pay for political activity.
What does politics have to do with it?
In 2016, Janus wrote that unions were not working toward making the government better. Instead, they supported candidates who deepened the state’s financial problems.
“Government unions have pushed for government spending that made the state’s fiscal situation worse,” Janus wrote. “How is that good for the people of the state? Or, for that matter, my fellow union members who face the threat of layoffs or their pension funds someday running dry?”
Janus’ attorney in court has argued that Illinois is violating the workers’ free speech rights by compelling them to subsidize organizations whose political activities they might oppose.
Who is representing Janus?
Attorneys for the National Right to Work Foundation and the Illinois-based Liberty Justice Center have been representing Janus in his yearslong challenge to union fees. The Liberty Justice Center is affiliated with the Illinois Policy Institute, a right-leaning think tank that once allied with Rauner, but that relationship started to crumble earlier this year.
Is Janus anti-union?
In a testimonial published on a website part of the Liberty Justice Center, Janus said he doesn’t consider himself to be anti-union.
“I don’t begrudge anyone who wants to form a union, or be part of a union,” he wrote. “But what is unfair and unconstitutional is forcing me — and millions of other American workers — to pay to advance policies we oppose just so we can serve our communities and our state.”
Chicago Tribune’s Elvia Malagon, Kim Geiger and AP contributed.
MORE COVERAGE:
