 |
| JANUS: W/ Honest Abe looking over his shouder |
Yet I couldn’t help but snicker a bit at the
weekend news reports about Mark Janus.
HE’S THE CHILD care specialist with the
Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services who allowed his
circumstances on the job to be used by the partisan ideologues who were anxious
in filing a court case to try to undermine the influence that organized labor
has within Illinois state government.
When the Supreme Court of the United States
last month ruled in his favor, it was Janus’ name that got national attention.
I’m sure for some people, the name “Janus” is now as big a deal as the names of
“Roe” and “Wade.”
As in the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that tossed
out all the state laws that considered abortion to be the equivalent of a
criminal act, and not a decision that was truly a woman’s personal business.
Janus is a long-time state worker who claims he
enjoyed his job. But he also has personal views that make him object to having
a labor union being involved in his employment.
HE PARTICULARLY RESENTED the notion that even
though he didn’t want to join the union (Council 31 of the American Federation
of State, County and Municipal Employees), union dues were deducted from his
paycheck to cover the cost of the work the union did in representing his
on-the-job rights.
That was the basis of his lawsuit, and the high
court has ruled in his favor.
Now, the Illinois Policy Institute has offered
Janus a job – one he plans to accept and will begin work at come Aug. 1.
 |
| Some will forevermore view "Janus" as a bad word |
BUT IT REALLY comes across as Janus getting his
payoff for helping partisan ideologues undermine organized labor – which many
state employees do rely upon to ensure the state doesn’t run roughshod over
their concerns.
 |
| SHAKMAN: Will Janus name gain similar aura? |
For the point of this lawsuit is to spark an
effort by which many government employees get swayed (or possibly strong-armed)
into thinking they should drop out of the AFSCME labor union.
A significant loss of membership would result
in a financial loss if it means the union has less in membership dues to fund
its work. Get enough people to go along with such talk, and you could start to
have a movement for revoking recognition of the union altogether.
Which is the real goal of the ideologues who engage
in such rhetoric. Make those “lazy bums” on the state payroll realize they ought
to be grateful anybody bothers to employ them. Even though anyone with sense
realizes treating employees with a modicum of respect is the real way to get
efficient labor from them.
JANUS, WHO IS now 65, likely wasn’t far from
being able to retire. Although I’m sure his financial future is significantly
stabilized, what with private sector employment that he gets largely because
his name was used as the legal basis for the Janus v. AFSCME lawsuit.
Of course, I’m sure those people who think more
highly of organized labor will feel he sold them out, so to speak. But I’m not
out to put the “Judas” label on Janus. In fact, I’m fairly sure the state
payroll would no longer be a pleasant place for him to be employed in the months
and years following his involvement with the lawsuit.
 |
| How will AFSCME recover from partisan court ruling? |
All I know is that a part of me wonders if
there’s any truth to the rhetoric being spewed by AFSCME types saying that not
many state workers are looking to quit paying dues, and a significant sum of state
workers who hadn’t previously joined the union are now doing so!
Janus’ name is going to be remembered for his
partisan action far more than the work he did on behalf of children. It will be
interesting to see what kind of taint, in coming decades, that will develop. Or if it develops an aura similar to that of "Shakman" (as in Michael, the attorney/activist who inspired the lawsuits that heavily restrict government hiring for partisan political purposes) which I'm sure Janus thinks is likely.
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment