Rebecca Friedrichs is a teacher who is the lead plantiff in the Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association U.S. Supreme Court case.
Advertisement
Friedrichs argues that these fees violate the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech because they fund union political speech that diverges from the beliefs of many union members who pay them. Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas are widely expected to rule in favor of letting teachers and other public employees decline union membership without being forced to pay agency fees. The Supreme Court has previously held that forcing employees to pay these “agency fees” is appropriate because the employees benefit from the union’s collective bargaining whether or not they belong to the union. Unions say a Supreme Court loss would cast a cloud over contracts for millions of police officers, firefighters, teachers, and nurses nationwide, but the Court seems prepared to rule against the unions. The second is the “free rider” argument: If a union now has to represent all workers equally, then members and nonmembers alike must pay a fair share of those costs.
“The problem that’s before us is whether or not individuals can be compelled to support political views that they disagree with”, said Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. But union officials say public agencies are likely to pay all of their workers based on what is negotiated in union contracts. But several of the justices hinted at the difficulties of separating out political issues in a way that would not infringe upon the free speech rights of non-members who disagree with the union.
Under current law, public employees covered by union contracts may opt out of paying for the political activities of their union.
“They should not have to check their First Amendment rights at the door in order to educate our children”, Blanchard said. “In the collective-bargaining context, what the employer needs is to get one agreement with one group of employees, which we do by having one union”, he said. He said it looked like Justice Anthony Kennedy, a frequent swing voter, “appeared to grow increasingly angry with the unions as the argument proceeded”.
The plaintiffs, California teachers backed by some anti-union groups, argue that the “fair share” law forces them to contribute to CTA political causes they oppose because it’s impossible to separate political from supposedly nonpolitical activities.
But Carvin said Abood’s rationale is inconsistent with other free-speech cases, noting that the court twice in recent years has issued 5-4 opinions questioning the rationale of that earlier case, though it has stopped short of overruling it.
“Everything that is collectively bargained with the government is within the political sphere”, added Scalia. But it would be a blow to all kinds of unions, and to the progressive politics they tend to support. Full union dues, charged only to members, also cover the costs of lobbying and other overtly political activities.
Under questioning from Roberts, DuMont conceded that “there are deep public policy implications to numerous topics and to the general tenor of public employee bargaining”.
Unions filed briefs with the Supreme Court that said fewer public employees would feel the need to pay union dues if Friedrichs prevails, providing less money for them to devote to collective bargaining.
Poor, oppressed union-hating teachers who are still perfectly happy to take the money and run.
Advertisement
The court’s decision, which should come down by the end of June, could have a transformative effect on the workplace-relations landscape in the United States.
