But Janus argued that Abood violated his right to freedom of expression, since unions enter into collective agreements with the government, and that all their activities should be considered political. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court dealt a blow to organized work and ruled that non-union members were no longer required to pay their „fair share“ for union representation in collective bargaining. On June 27, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Janus/AFSCME that employers and public sector unions could not contractually require that „fair sharing“ payments be automatically deducted from non-consenting workers represented by the union. Fair sharing agreements violate the rights of employees who do not directly authorize the payment of the „fair share.“ Under Janus, employers and public sector unions can no longer accept only „fairly shared“ payments from workers that directly authorize this payment. In March 2015, three Illinois government employees, represented by lawyers from the Liberty Justice Center in Illinois and the Virginia-based National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, filed a lawsuit to intervene. [20] [21] [22] In May 2015, Rauner was excluded from the proceedings after a federal judge ruled that the governor was not entitled to bring such an action, but the case was prosecuted under a new name, Janus v. AFSCME. [23] The case is named after Mark Janus, a child care specialist in Illinois, who is the subject of a collective agreement. The ability of workers to decide not to pay the union benefits they receive if fair rights of action are prohibited does not mean that they do not appreciate these benefits.

This proposal was explained in a letter from amici curiae to help the Supreme Court understand the problem of the battlers of Janus v. AFSCME, signed by 36 eminent economists and professors of economics and law, including three Nobel laureates. The problem of parasitism is a well-established concept in economics, the scientists explained. In particular, the letter shows that it is widely accepted that when a person decides not to pay for a resource provided free of charge, this does not mean that the person does not appreciate the resource and that if people who take advantage of a resource do not pay for it, the resource is undernourished.3 The International Labour Organization agreements do not address the legality of agency fee provisions. , leaves the matter to each nation. [5] The legal status of agency-boutique agreements varies considerably from country to country, from prohibitions of the agreement to a comprehensive settlement of the agreement to an unmentioned agreement.