The U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments today on a case that could end mandatory union dues and fees for public sector workers, which are now required in about half the states in the country.
Advertisement
A group of public school teachers in California claims that supposed “fair share” fees violate First Amendment rights of any workers who disagree with the union’s positions.
“The union basically is making these teachers compelled riders for issues on which they strongly disagree”, said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who is often the swing vote on the deeply divided court.
Even as the big public employee unions such as the California Teachers Association pursue their agendas this year in the Legislature and in ballot measures – on taxes, particularly – a pending U.S. Supreme Court case threatens to reduce their political power.
The larger threat, the unions and their supporters say, is that a decision in the plaintiffs favor would encourage many workers who are perfectly happy with the work of their unions to make the economically rational decision to opt out of paying for it. The reduced funding for public sector unions would also drain a significant source of campaign cash for the Democratic candidates those unions support.
“The next question”, Blanning said, “is if people decide not to pay for union representation, should they be represented at all?”
The court’s liberal members defended the current practice, noting that the justices usually think twice before overturning such a long-standing precedent.
“Here is their logic: Because unions can not charge nonmembers for political activity and since nonmembers argue that everything a public-sector union does – even bargaining – is political in nature, it follows that any fees violate their First Amendment right not to pay for activity to which they object”, Lyle Denniston writes for SCOTUSBlog.
According to statistics compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, public sector unions focus many of their contributions on members of Congress from both parties who sit on committees that deal with federal budgets and agencies.
“The problem is that everything that is collectively bargained with the government is within the political sphere, nearly by definition”, Scalia said during the arguments. While dues might cover the cost of some of the union’s political activities, “fair share” fees are restricted to paying for collective bargaining, grievances and other non-political services, the law professor said.
Public employee unions say such fees are essential to their well-being, and that challenges to the arrangement are born of conservative efforts to weaken their strength. So wanting the district to pay a higher salary to teachers is a political position (presumably one most teachers back?) which is itself a form of political activism. “Should the government pay higher wages or lesser wages?”
“This is a case in which there are tens of thousands of contracts with these provisions”, she said.
A ruling in the case is expected by late June.
Advertisement
The “opt in” requirement could lead to more workers declining to pay the political portion of union dues, though it typically is a much smaller part of the overall payment. This case has nothing to do with what’s good for students or working families.
