Benjamin Sachs is the Kestnbaum Professor of Labor and Industry at Harvard Law School and a leading expert in the field of labor law and labor relations. He is also faculty director of the Center for Labor and a Just Economy. Professor Sachs teaches courses in labor law, employment law, and law and social change, and his writing focuses on union organizing and unions in American politics. Prior to joining the Harvard faculty in 2008, Professor Sachs was the Joseph Goldstein Fellow at Yale Law School. From 2002-2006, he served as Assistant General Counsel of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) in Washington, D.C. Professor Sachs graduated from Yale Law School in 1998, and served as a judicial law clerk to the Honorable Stephen Reinhardt of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. His writing has appeared in the Harvard Law Review, the Yale Law Journal, the Columbia Law Review, the New York Times and elsewhere. Professor Sachs received the Yale Law School teaching award in 2007 and in 2013 received the Sacks-Freund Award for Teaching Excellence at Harvard Law School. He can be reached at [email protected].
Recognizing the potential folly in engaging with a Trump tweet, I thought it was worth two quick comments on what the President had to say about Janus. Here’s the tweet:
Supreme Court rules in favor of non-union workers who are now, as an example, able to support a candidate of his or her choice without having those who control the Union deciding for them. Big loss for the coffers of the Democrats!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 27, 2018
One, the first sentence of the tweet gets the the relevant law completely wrong. No worker, even before Janus, could ever be compelled to support a candidate they didn’t like. That decision was never within the “control” of the union, because unions could never charge for political activity.
Two, the second sentence of the tweet is more on point. In fact, this last sentence captures exactly what this line of cases – from Knox to Harris to Friedrichs to Janus – has always been about.
Daily News & Commentary
Start your day with our roundup of the latest labor developments. See all
June 22
California lawmakers challenge Garmon preemption in the absence of an NLRB quorum and Utah organizers successfully secure a ballot referendum to overturn HB 267.
June 20
Three state bills challenge Garmon preemption; Wisconsin passes a bill establishing portable benefits for gig workers; and a sharp increase in workplace ICE raids contribute to a nationwide labor shortage.
June 19
Report finds retaliatory action by UAW President; Senators question Trump's EEOC pick; California considers new bill to address federal labor law failures.
June 18
Companies dispute NLRB regional directors' authority to make rulings while the Board lacks a quorum; the Department of Justice loses 4,500 employees to the Trump Administration's buyout offers; and a judge dismisses Columbia faculty's lawsuit over the institution's funding cuts.
June 17
NLRB finds a reporter's online criticism of the Washington Post was not protected activity under federal labor law; top union leaders leave the Democratic National Committee amid internal strife; Uber reaches a labor peace agreement with Chicago drivers.
June 16
California considers bill requiring human operators inside autonomous delivery vehicles; Eighth Circuit considers challenge to Minnesota misclassification law and whether "having a family to support" is a gendered comment.