Union Protesters Antagonize us at Supreme Court Rally for Mark Janus


I don’t know where these people come from
or who is endorsing them, but they are not us. We believe in freedom of speech. It looks like they’re with the Unions. Dude, you totalitarian moron get those signs
out of their faces. We believe in freedom of speech. Hi, quick question so what are you guys doing
here today, for this court case? Uhhh… Well… I don’t think that we have anything to do
today… Hi, how are you? Would you like to answer any questions real
quick? No, I have to go. I’m sorry You sure? Okay. Thank you so much. Hi, how are you today sir?
No questions? Ok. Good evening ma’am, how are you today? Not today, thank you. “Not today, thank you.” Hi, how are you? I’m Ben,
pleasure to meet you. Could you please get out of my face, sir. Thank you very much. Don’t touch him. You sure you don’t want to answer two questions? That sounds like some bullshit. That sounds like some…
“Capital Research Center”. I’m Hayden Ludwig, I’m with the Capital
Research Center. I’m here in front of the Supreme Court building
for the Janus v. AFSCME protest. You can tell behind me it’s a big turnout
right now in support of Mr. Janus, from Illinois, who is protesting the American Federation
of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFSCME, right now, which is currently forcing
him to pay union dues and union fees despite his not wanting to support the union agenda. I don’t disparage unions. If people would like to collectively bargain,
I think they should be able to. That’s fine. But I don’t think they need to compel me
or coerce me to pay a fee in order for me to have my job, because if I don’t pay I
lose my job. In 1977, the Supreme Court ruled in the Abood
case that all public employees, even non-union members, could be forced to pay union fees
because they benefit from collective bargaining agreements. However, if the Supreme Court rules in favor
of Mark Janus it would overturn these mandatory fees for public-sector unions. Attorney William Messenger summarized Janus’s case before the court. The issue in this case is whether public sector agency fees are constitutional. These are retirements that public sector employees have to pay dues to a union in order to keep their job. And so here those fees are being challenged under the first amendment. The idea being that forcing individuals to support a union against their will violates the first amendment right to free speech and association. Labor unions like AFSCME are worried that
conservative justice Neil Gorsuch will tip the scale in favor of Janus. To insulate themselves from this ruling, the
Service Employees International Union has devised a bill that would privatize certain
state employees, locking them into paying mandatory dues. That bill has already passed in Washington
state, and it is believed that others will soon follow. I’m Hayden Ludwig with the Capital Research
Center, reporting from Washington, DC.

Leave a Reply

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