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.
HagedornJParasCAGreenwichHet al.
The role of labor unions in creating working conditions that promote public health. Am J Public Health2016;
106: 989–995.
3.
MalinowskiBMinklerMStockL.Labor unions: a public health institution. Am J Public Health2015;
105: 261–271.
4.
WallaceM.Dying for coal : the struggle for health and safety conditions in American coal mining. Soc Forces1987;
66: 336–364.
5.
SamuelHD.Troubled passage: the labor movement and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mon Labor Rev2000;
123: 32–37.
6.
HoffmanB.Health care reform and social movements in the United States. Am J Public Health2003;
93: 75–85.
7.
GottschalkM.It’s the health-care costs, stupid!”: ideas, institutions, and the politics of organized labor and health policy in the United States. Stud Am Pol Dev2000;
14: 234–252.
8.
ParksV.The uneven geography of racial and ethnic wage inequality: specifying local labor market effects. Ann Assoc Am Geogr2012;
102: 700–725.
9.
ChoDChoJ.How do labor unions influence the gender earnings gap? A comparative study of the US and Korea. Fem Econ2011;
17: 133–157.
10.
ReynoldsMMBradyD.Bringing you more than the weekend: union membership and self-rated health in the United States. Soc Forces2012;
90: 1023–1049.
11.
PrinsSJBatesLMKeyesKMet al.
Anxious? Depressed? You might be suffering from capitalism: contradictory class locations and the prevalence of depression and anxiety in the USA. Sociol Health Illn2015;
37: 1352–1372.
12.
BorJCohenGHGaleaS.Population health in an era of rising income inequality: USA, 1980–2015. Lancet2017;
389: 1475–1490.
13.
WesternBRosenfeldJ.Unions, norms, and the rise in U.S. wage inequality. Am Sociol Rev2011;
76: 513–537.
14.
Center for Economic and Policy Research. The changing face of labor, 1983–2008. Washington, DC: Center for Economic and Policy Research, 2009.
American Public Health Association. Resolution 20068 on the right for employee free choice to form unions. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association,2006.
17.
American Public Health Association. Resolution 9204 on labor unions and health. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association,1992.
18.
American Public Health Association. Reducing income inequality to advance health (Policy statement 20179). Washington, DC: American Public Health Association,2017.
19.
MooreWJ.The determinants and effects of right-to-work laws: a review of the recent literature. J Labor Res1998;
19: 445–469.
20.
FeigenbaumJHertel-FernandezAWilliamsonV. From the bargaining table to the ballot box: political effects of right to work laws, www.nber.org/papers/w24259 (accessed 9 June 2018).
21.
LoomisDSchulmanMDBailerAJet al.
Political economy of US states and rates of fatal occupational injury. Am J Public Health2009;
99: 1400–1408.
