Eisenberg-Guyot Jerzy, Hagopian Amy
1 University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, WA, USA.
New Solut. 2018 Nov;28(3):392-399. doi: 10.1177/1048291118784713. Epub 2018 Jun 27.
In February 2018, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Janus v. AFSCME, a case poised to make right-to-work (or, as some call it, right-to-work-for-less) the law in the public sector. At issue is the constitutionality of requiring non-union members, who benefit from collective bargaining, to pay fees that support contract negotiations on the terms and conditions of their employment. We argue that a win for Janus would threaten public health by eroding organized labor's power to improve working conditions. Furthermore, we critique the dubious legal theory underpinning Janus's case and describe the moneyed political interests backing his legal representation. Finally, we chart a path forward for labor organizing in a post- Janus world, drawing inspiration from the winter 2018 educators' strike in West Virginia. Regardless of how Janus itself is decided, the issues raised in this article remain crucial because the ongoing weakening of unions by legislative and judicial means undermines workers' health and exacerbates inequities.
2018年2月，美国最高法院就“贾纳斯诉美国州、县、市雇员联合会”案进行了口头辩论，此案有可能使“工作权利法”（或者如一些人所称的“低薪工作权利法”）在公共部门成为法律。争议的焦点是，要求从集体谈判中受益的非工会成员支付费用以支持有关其就业条款和条件的合同谈判是否符合宪法。我们认为，如果贾纳斯胜诉，将削弱有组织的劳工改善工作条件的力量，从而威胁公众健康。此外，我们批评了支撑贾纳斯案的可疑法律理论，并描述了支持其法律代理的有钱有势的政治利益集团。最后，我们从2018年冬季西弗吉尼亚州教育工作者罢工中汲取灵感，描绘了一个后贾纳斯时代劳工组织的前进道路。无论贾纳斯案本身如何裁决，本文提出的问题仍然至关重要，因为立法和司法手段持续削弱工会的力量，损害了工人的健康，加剧了不平等。
