mr. janice? guest: the unions are working in regards to looking at alternatives and there hasn't put inspecific plan place, but they are looking into alternatives in regards to how we can still do what we do. host: from philadelphia, a union member. this is philip. caller: hello. this is philip. guest: good morning. caller: i'm a member of district council 33, local 488. critical and it is very important that our members, but the union collection from fair share members as well. they are reaping the same benefits as -- you cannot get nothing for free. working for the city of philadelphia, i've been a union member for 17 years. i see the benefits of being in the union. having a union has allowed me to go back to school and earn my college degree. live aallowed me to good, comfortable lifestyle. able to take vacations. host: are there members in your union who will question this idea of paying fees? particularly because of political concerns? how do you respond to them? i have been serving as a uni

mr. janice works in the state of illinois. not a member of afscme, american federation of state county municipal employees. because they represent the collective par gaining unit, they go through negotiation on salaries, mr. janice they say benefits from the wages that apply to everybody, therefore he should pay a portion of the fees they incur to do those negotiations. but mr. janice says they use that for politics and violates his free speech rights. this argument has been heard before the court before. back in 2016 but justice scalia had died it, was a 4-4 decision. the key decision is justice gorsuch. he did not have any questions. mr. janice says it is not fair to. >> the fundamental issue is my right to choice. in the very first paycheck i had a fee come out of my paycheck. i had to pay the fee. nobody asked me. i wasn't give the opportunity to say yes. >> it is economic fact. if you have less money and you have people that are free riding, it is harder for you to do your job. reporter: nancy pelosi, minority leader of t

mr. janice took this to court and he says it's a violation of his free speech right because so much union money is used for political causes so here is what mr. janice said after the hearing on the steps of the supreme court and he followed up by a lawyer representing the union. >> the fundamental issue is my right to choice, the fundamental issue is that with my very first paycheck i had a fee come out of my paycheck and i had to pay the fee. nobody asked me. i wasn't given the opportunity to say yes. >> it's an economic fact if you have less money and you have people that are free riding then it's harder for you to do your job. adam: now that man you heard after mr. janice was david fredrick a lawyer who says if you stop requiring these non- members of the union to pay this free, then the union itself can't conduct a business that the union does such as grievance resolution and negotiating contracts, but the argument that mr. janice and lawyers are making is that look a lot of this money is being used for political purposes. nancy pelosi minority leader in the house issued a statement a

mr. janice's favor is there any type of recourse available to the organization at large? guest: i'm not one of the attorneys. i would have to do for that to them. what i will say is this, we will still get up and go to work the next morning. servicestill provide an advocate have a cam for the community. host: what are you looking for as you watch the proceedings? to go in is an honor and see history taking place at the speak. i'm going to try to better understand what the arguments are. i've been very hard-pressed to do so. i still may not after this case, after hearing the arguments. i'm going there to take part in history. host: mr. mittons serves as the president of asked me local 21, joining us to talk about this case before the supreme court today. >> see spam's washington journal, live -- see spam's wasn , new york republican congressman john basso on gun control and school safety. michigan congressman dan kildee talks about infrastructure and what can be done to help older industrial cities. tom hart of the one campaign will discuss efforts to combat extreme povert

mr. janice's favor, is there any other recourse available? >> i am not one of the attorneys, i would have to ask them. but i will say is this. work.l get up and go to we will still advocate where we can and how we can for the community. pedro: you're going to watch the case today. what are you looking for? >> personally, it is quite an honor to see the hiss -- history taking place. i'm going to try to better understand what the arguments are and better understand what the other side is. i have been very hard-pressed to do so. i still may not after this case. i'm going there to be part of history. mr. mittons joining us to talk about this case. for that, we thank you, sir. ♪ announcer: tuesday morning, new york republican congressman on gun control and school safety. then, she can democratic congressman talks about infrastructure and what can be done to bolster industrial cities. and the efforts to combat extreme poverty and the effect of president trump's proposed budget cuts. be sure to watch c-span's "washington journal" tuesday morning. jo

mr. janice and his employer next. us on in washington, d.c., mark janus, an illinois child support specialist and the lead plaintiff. his litigation director, an attorney for mark janus, thanks for joining us. .plaintiff you cast your argument before the court today as a first amendment issue. the first amendment guarantees me the right of freedom of speech and freedom of association. the problem is i am not allowed to make that decision for myself. i don't have that choice. , the union that represents me, mandate that i pay these fees, whether i want to or not. i was not asked. it came out of my paycheck. for i saw the deduction union dues, i said, where is this coming from? i am not a member of the union. i never signed a pledge card, i never asked. my colleague said you have to have this fee come out. if you do not, you lose your job. what about the idea that you want the benefits of union protection but you do not want to pay the fees? guest: they are getting all of this money from public sector workers like mysel

mr. janice who are not member. it's very unfair to free ride off the work that the union is doing and get the benefits without having to pay for it. states say in the public employee context, the first amendment is much more limited than it is in other context and that there are a whole bunch of different lines of cases out there that say when you are regulating the government in its role as an employer, when you're affecting the government's role s an employer, it's less protective in speech. as i said earlier, i think if you are forecasting the case, probably put a thumb on the scale on the side of the challengers to abud. i think the case is very important and that is broad policy implications because of what i wasat my from able to glean from the breach union's dues -- these agency fees that are sort of in play. and there are maybe five million or so employees across the country who are subject to the requirement to pay these fees. there's a great fear that if the fees are not required to be paid then a lot of

mr. janice is suggesting here. >> paul: is there, from a legal point of view, a distinction between privatetor unions, people representing a company like ford motor, and public unions which represent the government? >> further to dan's point, we're talking about government worker unions in this. >> paul: correct. >> where they're guaranteed first amendment rights, not the same in a private sector union. i think going even further, the unions today are a huge force in the political life and i think we said it many times in owed tore y'alls. when they're negotiating with politicians, in many cases they're the boss of the politicians, especially for democrats. they're more likely to be in a position ptotic tate t to dice politicians to make the decisions. it's an influence in governmen. >> paul: how do you see this turning out, alicia, on the court? >> i think it going 5-4. i think gorsuch will favor first amendment right. >> paul: will they overturn the precedent of 40 years? >> i think they will. they've considered a number of other cases in recent years that they didn't have to go all the w

mr. janice and other employees to pay for it.llective bargaining, you better pay the dues and better join the club, that's it, isn't it? >> well, that assume that is collective bargaining is, in fact, a benefit but the first amendment reserves the individual to decide what advocacy is beneficial to them so if an individual decides that he doesn't think union advocacy is in best interest, he has a first amendment right not to support it but the government can't decide for each individual what speech is beneficial and what is not. that's something the first amendment reserves to the individual. stuart: if the court finds in favor of you and plaintiff client, then the repercussions will be serious certainly for democrats and for government sector unions across the board, but my question, last question to you, sir, is this, when do you expect a ruling? >> my guess would be in june, usually the supreme court releases all of its argument before it goes on summer break at the end of june so i would expect at the time. stuart: thank you

mr. janice is suggesting here. >> paul: is there, from a legal point of view, a distinction between privateunions, people representing a company like ford motor, and public unions which represent the government? >> further to dan's point, we're talking about government worker unions in this. >> paul: correct. >> where they're guaranteed first amendment rights, not the same in a private sector union. i think going even further, the unions today are a huge force in the political life and i think we said it many times in owed tore y'alls. when they're negotiating with politicians, in many cases they're the boss of the politicians, especially for democrats. they're more likely to be in a position ptotic tate t to dice politicians to make the decisions. it's an influence in governmen. >> paul: how do you see this turning out, alicia, on the court? >> i think it going 5-4. i think gorsuch will favor first amendment right. >> paul: will they overturn the precedent of 40 years? >> i think they will. they've considered a number of other cases in recent years that they didn't have to go all the way a

mr. janice is suggesting here. >> paul: is there, from a legal point of view, a distinction between privateompany like ford motor, and public unions which represent the government? >> further to dan's point, we're talking about government worker unions in this. >> paul: correct. >> where they're guaranteed first amendment rights, not the same in a private sector union. i think going even further, the unions today are a huge force in the political life and i think we said it many times in owed tore y'alls. when they're negotiating with politicians, in many cases they're the boss of the politicians, especially for democrats. they're more likely to be in a position ptotic tate t to dice politicians to make the decisions. it's an influence in governmen. >> paul: how do you see this turning out, alicia, on the court? >> i think it going 5-4. i think gorsuch will favor first amendment right. >> paul: will they overturn the precedent of 40 years? >> i think they will. they've considered a number of other cases in recent years that they didn't have to go all the way an and overturn in those ca. the

mr. janice and his employer next. us on in washington, d.c., mark janus, an illinois child support specialist and the lead plaintiff. his litigation director, an attorney for mark janus, thanks for joining us. .plaintiff you cast your argument before the court today as a first amendment issue. the first amendment guarantees me the right of freedom of speech and freedom of association. the problem is i am not allowed to make that decision for

mr. janice is being represented by the national right to work foundation. let's call it the right to freeload because that's what it is. you don't contribute your share but you get all the benefits. it reminds me about the conversation about citizenship in america. people talk about the rights of citizenship. there are responsibilities to citizenship too. there's a responsibility to be part of a group when you bargain for wages. that's paying your fair share. paying your fair head start, the heart -- fair share v. the organizers. now, we've seen the right to freeload bills pass with the influence of the titans across this country in state after tight. well, here's what we know. in those states that protect the constitutional vision of the right to organize, workers earn over $5,000 a year more than in the other states. right to freeload states, those workers earn a lot less and that's apparently why the owners of those areas love that so much. they can sweez more out -- squeeze more out of the workers. the freeload states have higher mortalities, they suppo