A More Perfect Pickering Test: Janus v. AFSCME Council 31 and the Problem of Public Employee Speech

n June 2018, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited—and, for the American labor movement, long-feared—decision in Janus v. AFSCME Council 31. The decision is expected to have a major impact on public sector employee union membership but could have further impact on public employees’ speech rights in the workplace. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito’s broad interpretation of whether work-related speech constitutes a “matter of public concern” may have opened the floodgates to substantially more litigation by employees asserting that their employers have violated their First Amendment rights. Claims that would have previously been unequivocally foreclosed may now be permitted. This Note proposes a test to allow courts to meaningfully respond to this influx of claims. By explicitly incorporating the “social value” of public employee speech into the Pickering balance test as a factor of equal weight alongside the existing factors—the individual employee’s right to speech and the employer’s interest in operating an effective workplace—courts can make meaningful sense of the doctrinal conflict Janus created while also respecting and promoting the unique role public employee speech plays in public discourse.

STUDY OF CUSTOMER SATISFACTION AT CANTEEN OF SAHID UNIVERSITY – JAKARTA

The canteen of Sahid University - Jakarta is a canteen which is located at Prof. Dr. Soepomo, SH No. 84, Tebet South Jakarta. The counters were sheltered by the Employee Union of Sahid University - Jakarta. The canteen of Sahid University - Jakarta is able to accommodate 15 counters for catering business. Currently the food and beverage products sold in the canteen are still in conventional method so that consumers are limited to the academic community of Sahid University - Jakarta and the community around the campus. This study aimed to assess the services offered by the canteen. This study also to determine the level of satisfaction of canteen customers on the canteen services, and to identify the problems encountered on the services. Most of customer of this canteen are 16-25 years old (84%) and half number of visitors are senior high school educational background (50%). More than half number of visitors come to Sahid University - Jakarta ocassionally (58%). At the quality of products data, more than half number of customers feel satisfied with the taste, price, and portion of foods and drinks are sold at canteen while more than half number of customers don’t feel satisfied with the hygiene, variation, and product display. At the quality of service data, more than half number of customers don’t feel satisfied with the affordability, convenience, supporting facilities, sanitation, accessibility and waiter’s tidiness of canteen. But more than half customers feel satisfied with waiter’s politeness, safety feeling, speed of service, accuracy, and seller’s the responsiveness of canteen of Sahid University - Jakarta.

Wisconsin and Beyond

This chapter examines the legislative attacks on the public sector aimed at eliminating employee union rights and slashing public services. Corporate lobbies and their legislative allies saw the 2010 elections as an opportunity to restructure labor relations, political power, and the size of government. With no guarantee that their dominance would last into the future, the 2011–2012 legislatures were driven by an urgency to pursue ambitious reforms while it was politically feasible. The chapter analyzes the extent of this legislative offensive as well as its underlying motives and ultimate objectives. It also asks why large, private corporations would spend significant time, money, and energy fighting public employee unions in Wisconsin or Ohio, and whether public employees are to blame for state budget deficits. Finally, it discusses the political and economic impacts of antiunionism and who benefited from cutting public employee compensation and pensions.

Exploring determinants of state employee union density in the United States

Purpose – To explore state employee union density, this paper discusses determinants of state sector union density and then empirically examines the linkages of the determinants and state union membership in the USA. Design/methodology/approach – After operationalizing and measuring the indicators of the crucial determinants of state employee union density, this study conducts a cross-sectional analysis on state sector union density. The dependent variable used in this study is state employee union density in the USA. The independent variables used in this study are the presence of a liberal state government, the presence of collective bargaining laws, the size of a budget deficit, and an unemployment rate which could determine state sector union density. Findings – This study finds that state union density is not determined by the size of budget deficits and the presence of liberal governors but by the presence of collective bargaining laws and liberal state legislatures and unemployment rates. Additionally, this study reveals that unified governments can make a difference in state employee union density. For instance, liberal states controlling both the state executive and legislative branches have a positive impact on state employee union density, while conservative states ruling both branches have a negative impact on state union density. Originality/value – This paper analyzed pooled cross-sectional data on state employee union density in the US with regards to crucial legal, political, financial, and economic variables.

Bargaining Representation and Union Membership in the Federal Sector: A Free Rider's Paradise

The federal government is extensively organized in terms of the number of employees belonging to exclusively recognized bargaining units. Yet, the largest federal-employee union is in serious financial trouble because of its relatively small membership. This article examines bargaining representation and union membership data among the three principal federal-employee unions during the 1981–1987 period. It finds that 1) each union faces a sizable free rider problem, and 2) the magnitude of the problem differs substantially across unions. The article discusses the financial implications of this problem and offers insights as to future directions in federal-sector unionism.