In a Bloomberg opinion article, New York University Law Professor Samuel Estreicher proposes a creative way that unions could withstand a Supreme Court defeat in Janus v. AFSCME: allow workers who object to paying union dues to instead donate an equivalent amount of money to the charity of their choice.  Professor Estreicher argues that this approach would make the legal fight underlying Janus “no longer [] about freedom of speech but about the right to ride for free on the benefits unions provide.”

The New York Times explores how the United States Women’s National Soccer Team (USWNT) has served as a model for female sports teams across the world in fighting for equal pay and improved employment conditions.  Two years ago, the USWNT, which has had significantly more success than the United States Men’s National Soccer Team,  began their crusade for equal pay–an effort that culminated in the signing of  a new collective bargaining agreement one year ago.

Public-school teachers in select North Carolina school districts are being required to use time cards to track their time spent working.  The Washington Post analyzes some of the implications of this practice, including the “deprofessionalization of teachers” and the potential “misrepresentation of teachers” (and the hours that they spend working outside of school).

The San Francisco Chronicle outlines pro-labor legislation that unions may lobby for in California should the Supreme Court rule for the plaintiff in Janus v. AFSCME.  While organized labor has long held a powerful voice in California, an unfavorable Janus decision could decrease union membership in the state by 125,000 to 750,000 members (an amount equal to 5 to 30 percent of its current 2.5 million union members).