|
|
|
|
Ballotpedia is covering the effects of the ongoing coronavirus pandemic on politics, government, and elections. Click here for the latest resources on this rapidly evolving story.
In this and coming editions of Union Station, we’re covering the important union and labor stories that are, understandably, taking a backseat to the coronavirus pandemic.
FLRA FORMALLY PROPOSES RULE CHANGE ALLOWING FEDERAL WORKERS TO STOP PAYING UNION DUES AFTER FIRST YEAR OF MEMBERSHIP
On March 19, the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) published a proposed rule in the Federal Register that would allow federal workers to stop paying union dues at any time after a statutory one-year period of dues payment. Up to this point, federal workers have only been permitted to rescind their union-dues assignments at one-year intervals.
What is at issue?
Section 7115(a) of the Federal Service Labor‑Management Relations Statute states, "[If] an agency has received from an employee in an appropriate unit a written assignment which authorizes the agency to deduct from the pay of the employee amounts for the payment of regular and periodic dues of the exclusive representative of the unit, the agency shall honor the assignment and make an appropriate allotment pursuant to the assignment." The statute states that "any such assignment may not be revoked for a period of [one] year."
In the past, the FLRA has interpreted the latter portion of the law to mean that union-dues payroll deduction authorizations can only be revoked in one-year intervals. After the Supreme Court issued its decision in Janus v. AFSCME, the Office of Personnel Management petitioned the FLRA for guidance on Janus' applicability to § 7115(a).
On Feb. 14, the FLRA issued a 2-1 decision rejecting its earlier interpretations of § 7115(a). FLRA Chairwoman Colleen Duffy Kiko wrote the following in the decision:
|
“
|
Although the Authority has stated that the wording in § 7115(a) 'must be interpreted' to mean that dues assignments may be revoked only at one‑year intervals following the first year, in fact, the Authority made a policy judgment to impose annual revocation periods after the first year of an assignment. In other words, notwithstanding previous assertions otherwise, § 7115(a) neither compels, nor even supports, the existing policy on annual revocation windows. Because it remains our privilege and
responsibility to interpret the Statute in a manner that is consistent with an efficient and effective government, we cannot allow our decisions or statements of policy to merely rubber-stamp what was said in the past.
|
”
|
What are the reactions?
- On March 19, Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), said, "The Authority’s proposed rule is contrary to both settled law and Congressional intent that clearly establish that dues allotments are only revocable at yearly intervals. That they would push forward with this kind of union busting in the midst of a pandemic, while front-line federal employees like VA caregivers, airport screeners, food inspectors, and other personnel are being forced to fight the administration for basic safety protocols and personal protective equipment, is truly disgraceful."
- On Feb. 26, Michael J. Reitz, executive vice president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, said, "This ruling matters because unions often erect bureaucratic barriers to trap workers into membership, barriers the Mackinac Center has repeatedly challenged in court and won. … The end result is that federal employees, who were already in a right-to-work status, may leave the union at any time. Thus, one million federal employees could choose that opportunity."
What comes next?
On Feb. 18, National Treasury Employees Union petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to block the proposed rule change. The court has not yet taken up the case. In the meantime, the rulemaking process will proceed. A public comment period opened on March 19 and will close on April 9.
|
WHAT WE'VE BEEN READING
- The College Fix, "UC San Diego workers file class action lawsuit to fight mandatory union dues," March 26, 2020
- KTUU, "Alaska's largest public sector union sues state to compel COVID-19 protections," March 25, 2020
- Fox KTVU, "Unions asking for 15% COVID-19 hazard pay; some call that 'ridiculous,'" March 24, 2020
- The National Law Review, "COVID-19: FAQs on Federal Labor and Employment Laws," March 9, 2020
|
THE BIG PICTURE
Number of relevant bills by state
We are currently tracking 93 pieces of legislation dealing with public-sector employee union policy. On the map below, a darker shade of green indicates a greater number of relevant bills. Click here for a complete list of all the bills we're tracking.
Number of relevant bills by current legislative status
Number of relevant bills by partisan status of sponsor(s)
|
RECENT LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS
Below is a complete list of relevant legislative actions taken since our last issue. Bills are listed in alphabetical order, first by state, then by bill number. The partisan affiliation of bill sponsor(s) is also provided.
- Vermont S0254: This bill would require public employers to provide unions with employee contact information. It would provide for the automatic deduction of union dues from members' paychecks, and it would permit unions to meet with new employees to provide them with information regarding union membership.
- Senate Health and Welfare Committee reported favorably March 27.
- Democratic sponsorship.
Thank you for reading! Let us know what you think! Reply to this email with any feedback or recommendations. |
|
Ballotpedia depends on the support of our readers.
The Lucy Burns Institute, publisher of Ballotpedia, is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. All donations are tax deductible to the extent of the law. Donations to the Lucy Burns Institute or Ballotpedia do not support any candidates or campaigns.
|
|
|
|
|
