The Supreme Court appeared to favor barring public unions from charging fees to non-members yesterday during oral arguments in a case union advocates said would spell disaster for workers.
Advertisement
Those teachers who disagree with the union position should not have to subsidize views with which they disagree, Kennedy said, adding that the current system creates “a whole class of persons whose speech has been silenced”. In fact, attorneys for the defendants admitted that agency fees in California include political costs such as lobbying state legislators to support union demands.
Two matters are at issue.
Public-sector union bargaining over pay, benefits, and work conditions is inherently political because it always involves taxpayer money, public employees, and government services.
The California government also said the nonmember group objects to everything the teachers’ union does in collective bargaining – no matter the issue. Public employee unions have become a major player in Democratic politics, generating campaign contributions and on-the-ground support for candidates.
As a fallback, the challengers urge the court to rule that teachers should not have to “opt out” of paying the full amount of dues by filling out a form once a year.
U.S. Supreme Court in Washington.
Such a ruling would be applicable in 25 US states that do not already have what is known as “right-to-work” laws that prohibit workers from being forced to pay fees to a union.
Monday’s hearing comes against the backdrop of a so-called “right to work” offensive led by conservatives in recent years. The logic is that all teachers benefit when, for example, pay is increased, and the law shouldn’t allow free riders to reap those benefits without sharing in the costs of achieving them.
Some justices were more sympathetic to the unions.
“This is a case in which there are tens of thousands of contracts with these provisions”, she said.
The court’s decision likely won’t be made public until summer. But the court’s Republican appointees sounded united in their determination to overrule the 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education that upheld these fees.
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”. And compelling them to support the advancement of political policies they oppose seemingly violates the First Amendment.
Being excused from paying for the union’s political activities is not enough, she said.
“Why do unions want the government to be able to force workers in their fold?” About half of all members are now in the public sector, which has a membership rate of 36 percent. That’s more than five times higher than that of the private sector, at 6.6 percent.
He noted the nation depends on a stable set of legal precedents and that it would create chaos if the high court routinely overturns itself.
Advertisement
As such, Kennedy continued, shouldn’t forcing people to pay the fees be seen not as a “free-rider” problem – a reason the court in Abood allowed the agency fees – but instead as a “compelled-rider” problem – which would, under Carvin’s argument, be a constitutional problem with requiring the fees. Currently, workers must “opt out” of the political fees by checking a box on a form. But since the union negotiates the contract that covers everyone, you are still required to pay your fair share fee, called an “agency fee”, to cover bargaining costs.
