They argue the mandatory fees – sometimes called “fair-share” fees – violate the First Amendment rights of workers who disagree with the union’s positions.
Advertisement
“If the Supreme Court overturns the decision… public-sector unions could be barred from requiring any fair share payments from any represented employees even while still being mandated, at considerable cost, to represent all employees in bargaining for wages, health benefits, staffing levels and other conditions of employment – in effect subsidizing free riders”, NNU wrote in a statement.
Massachusetts, along with 24 other states and the District of Columbia, authorize “agency fee” requirements at the public sector unions that represent government employees including police, firefighters, teachers and health-care workers.
In Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, Rebecca Friedrichs is asking for the right to choose whether to pay a labor union.
Lesa Curtis of Westchester, N.Y., (R), who is pro agency fees and a former president of her union, rallies outside the Supreme Court in Washington, Jan. 11, 2016.
If a majority of the justices side with the teachers, public sector unions would lose funding from state government workers, damaging their ability to bargain for both members and nonmembers.
Instead, he says, the union focused on politics.
The lawsuit was brought by a group of California teachers who seek to overturn the court’s previous ruling on the issue, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, a 1977 case.
But Michael A. Carvin, the lawyer for the teachers, said the court has left a confusing landscape, and whatever it decides will end up puncturing some of its previous rulings. The specific issue before the Supreme Court involves California’s largest teachers’ union and could affect how public employee unions operate nationwide.
The unions argue that the First Amendment applies differently to public employees performing their jobs.
Kennedy said that now non-members are “compelled riders” if they disagree with the union’s stances on various issues.
Federal employee unions also can not collect such fees. Those who oppose public unions on ideological (or business) grounds know that opening the door for people to opt out of paying agency fees will inevitably weaken unions financially and politically.
“It could have a huge impact on public sector unions in that the lifeblood you depend on would effectively dry up, that is union dues”, said Keith Cunningham-Parmeter, a law professor at Willamette University who specializes in labor law. With Justice Alito having written the two recent labor-related opinions, the most likely fifth vote for the unions (supported by California and the United States) becomes Justice Thomas, but only because he said nothing, as is his wont. “They prevent the unfairness and conflict that could arise were only part of the work force to support representation activities that, by law, must advance and protect the interests of every employee”.
For the California teachers’ unions pleading their case at the Supreme Court Monday morning – in a case that could impact public sector unions across the country – the math just didn’t add up.
Advertisement
“It was 40 years ago”, he repeated, questioning the effect on other related decisions – ranging from bar association fees to student activity fees.
