The Janus decision makes it harder for public sector unions to organize, by reducing the logic for collective action. We can look at Wisconsin's Act 10, which also targeted Act 10, to see what that means 1/
Since Act 10 passed, WI union membership dropped faster than anywhere in the country.: from 14% to 8% in 5 years. The law deliberately targeted the existence of unions: had to recertify each year, with the majority of members (not just voters). No politician could achieve that 2/
The stated purpose of Act 10 was to reduce a budget deficit. Unions were ready to agree to those cuts as long as they could still organize, but no deal. At a practical level, this reduces political support for Democrats: fewer dollars and door-knockers projects.jsonline.com/news/2016/11/2… 3/ 
At the same time union power declined, the WI Supreme Court green-lighted a flood of dark money into the state, undercutting enforcement of possible campaign act violations, and allowing coordination between politicians and dark money group 4/ huffingtonpost.com/jay-mandle/ill…
Act 10 was primarily focused on teachers, who Walker characterized as "haves" compared to private sector "have-nots." Wisconsin faces teacher shortages amidst declining salary and benefits. (I do recall a study that found the Act improved teacher quality, but cannot find it). 5/
In the same way that Act 10 was justified by the need to cut budgets, Janus is being justified on free speech grounds. But in both cases the backers were dark money donors seeking to remove a counterbalance to their increasing power 6/ nytimes.com/2018/02/25/bus…
Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose: in the years since the passage of Act 10, public employees have seen significant cuts in wages & benefits
