ANCHORAGE, Alaska (KTUU) – The U.S. Supreme Court decided against hearing a case that would eliminate the option for Alaska state employees to opt out of paying union dues entirely.
The state was appealing a lower court’s ruling allowing state union workers to opt out of paying union dues more easily, but Tuesday’s ruling by the federal court prevented that from happening.
In 2021, an Anchorage Superior Court judge ruled that Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s administration violated the Alaska Constitution by unilaterally changing how state employees’ union dues are collected. The ruling came after Dunleavy created an opt-in program in 2019 for state employees that would have given them an option to have union dues collected from their paychecks.
Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor said Tuesday that the state is disappointed the Supreme Court did not take up the case.
Advertisement
“It was always a long shot, but we had some hope when the Court re-listed our case a few times because that generally means the justices are taking a hard look,” Taylor wrote in an email. “Ultimately, the Court declined to take this one on. Where there is uncertainty about an employee’s constitutional rights, the State should always defer to protecting those rights and seek clarity on the State’s role through the third branch of government—which is what occurred here. As always, we are committed to upholding the law and will follow the court decisions.”
Heidi Drygas, the head of the Alaska State Employees Union, the AFSCME Local 52, said in a statement that while the union is happy with the call, it also came at a financial cost.
“This is good news for ASEA, yet we can’t help reflecting on the price Alaskans paid to reach this conclusion,” Drygas wrote. “The Governor pursued a politically motivated, frivolous lawsuit to waste untold hours and more than a million dollars during one of the largest public service crises in our state’s history. Alaska’s public workforce showed up on the frontlines of the pandemic to help Alaskans despite being largely short-staffed and underfunded. The Governor returned the favor by seeking to undermine their rights to bargain collectively for better wages, benefits, and working conditions.
“ASEA hopes the Administration will focus now on pragmatic solutions for recruiting and retaining public employees. ASEA will continue to advocate for paying workers fairly and timely for the work they do, treating employees with respect, and providing incentives to stay — like a secure retirement. I’m proud of our union members and our team and I’m excited to forge ahead for the benefit of public employees and all working Alaskans.”
JUNEAU, Alaska (KTUU) – The Supreme Court of Alaska will be taking up the case of the State of Alaska, Division of Elections v. Daniel J. Sullivan, Jr.
The oral arguments will be held Monday at 10 a.m. via Zoom, according to an order and opening notice.
The document also specifies that a decision is expected to be made before noon on Tuesday.
According to documents from the Division of Elections, the state must start printing ballots at noon on the same day.
Advertisement
This comes after an Anchorage Superior Court Judge ordered Dan J. Sullivan on to the ballot Friday.
See a spelling or grammar error? Report it to web@ktuu.com
A new home under construction in Potter Valley in Anchorage. (Loren Holmes / ADN)
This June, two very different offers reach Alaska families, and both amount to the same thing: $10,000. The difference is everything.
Bill Walker, running for governor, would hand every eligible Alaskan a one-time $10,000 check and then end the Permanent Fund dividend for good. Ask one question: Where does his $10,000 come from?
It comes from the Permanent Fund, the people’s own money and the savings Alaskans built for their children. Walker would spend that endowment once to pay Alaskans to give up the yearly dividend forever.
Think about what that does. It cancels the annual check that gives a family a reason to keep an Alaska address and replaces it with a single payout. You hand people their own savings, call it a gift and cut the tie that held them here in the same motion. It is the oldest mistake in governing money: raid what you have saved to buy a moment’s applause and call the spending generosity.
Advertisement
A plan that spends the people’s savings to send the people away is not bold. It is foolish.
Now consider the other $10,000. Through Alaska Housing Finance Corp., the state offers families up to $10,000 to build a new, energy-efficient home. AHFC raids nothing. It earns its own way. Over the years, it has returned more than $2 billion to the state treasury, and it spends some of that income the way any good business does: to win a customer.
Here, the customer is an Alaskan who wants to own a home, put down roots and stay.
That is the oldest sound move in business: Invest a little of what you earn to bring in someone who stays. The homeowner remains, the community gains a family and the corporation keeps earning. The money spent comes back. A plan that puts earnings to work to bring people home is not charity. It is clever.
Same amount. Opposite source. Opposite wisdom. One spends savings; the other spends earnings. One pays Alaskans to leave; the other pays them to stay. One empties the state; the other fills it.
Advertisement
This Homeownership Month, the choice is the size of a single check, and the whole question is where the check comes from and what it asks of you. Ten thousand dollars of your own fund, to wave you goodbye. Or $10,000, earned and reinvested, to help you stay and build.
Evan Swensen is the publisher of Publication Consultants in Anchorage and the author of “What’s the Money For: A Permanent Fund Mortgage Proposal.”
• • •
The Anchorage Daily News welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.
