 The court's decision in Janus will immediately impact the nearly 7 million state and local government workers who are represented by a union. But it will have impacts for the over 17 million state and local government workers throughout the country. But it really goes beyond that. The case is going to impact all of us. It's going to impact our communities and the public services that we rely on. And it's going to impact our neighbor's quality of life who perform and provide those services. So today we're talking about the Janus case. And the case is important for all working people in this country and essentially it's a First Amendment challenge to whether or not unions can charge state and local government workers a fee for the services that the union is required by law to provide them. Under the current law no one can be required to join a union. But unions are required to represent all workers whether or not they choose to join the union once the majority has elected a union in the workplace. And what fair share or agency fees are are basically the fees that the union charges nonmembers for all of the benefits that they get for the representation they receive for by the union. So that means that when they negotiate a collective bargaining agreement, the wages, the benefits that are contained in that agreement, the union charges those nonmembers a fee for having done that negotiating on their behalf. There's a bright line in the law that those fees cannot be charged. Agency fees, fair share fees cannot be used to support the union's political activity only for the activities that are around a collective bargaining agreement. The likely impact of Janus is that it's going to be harder for workers who want to be in a union, to be represented by a union, to do so effectively. This will make unions operate with far fewer resources because they're no longer able to charge this fee to workers who they're required to represent. I can't imagine any other entity being required to perform services, provide services for folks and not being able to charge for those services. I can't imagine that we would ask Bank of America to provide services to folks and not charge some sort of service fee for what they're doing. So-called right-to-work laws govern private sector employment, but it is true that the Janus decision is likely to make all state and local government workers work under essentially that so-called right-to-work regime. And we know from looking at states that have enacted right-to-work laws that has nothing to do with workers having a right to a job and nothing to do with higher wages or a better quality job, quite the opposite. The data bears out that wages do not increase and in some instances actually wages do decrease when right-to-work laws are enacted. Janus actually is the third case that the court has heard in the last five years that is exactly on this issue of whether or not there's a First Amendment violation when unions charge this fee. And, you know, that's very rare that the same issue would come before the court so frequently. But it's really the result of a legal strategy that's not a terribly complicated one, but it's a very determined group of plaintiffs with a lot of money to spend and essentially they're determined to ask the court the same question over and over again until they get the decision that they want. So as I mentioned before, this is the third time that the court has heard a case on this issue in the last five years. And a group of sort of wealthy foundations with ties to some of the most powerful corporate lobbies have been footing the bill for these challenges, sort of attacking the ability of public sector workers to effectively, collectively bargain. And I think a big motivation for that is that these folks don't live in the same world that the rest of us do. They do not rely on public schools to educate their children. They're not dependent on home health aides that fund it through Medicaid dollars to care for aging parents. They live in a very different universe. And so they don't want to pay. They don't want these to be decent, good-paying jobs because it costs them more. And they have no stake in sort of a shared sense of community. And at its core, you know, that's what this case is really about. What kind of world we want to live in? What kind of community we want to share with our neighbors? Is it a community where our trash is picked up by people who are making a decent wage and whose children go to a decent school with ours? Or is this a, you know, a community where, you know, we can't rely on any consistency in our public services and increasingly those jobs just become underpaid. And, you know, we have a disruption in our services.