While the court has recognized that public employees can not be forced to join a union to keep their jobs (this violates their right of free association), the court ruled in Abood vs. Detroit Board of Education in 1977 that forcing public employees to pay an “agency fee” to cover the costs of representing them did not violate the First Amendment.
Advertisement
The high court was scheduled to hear oral arguments Monday in a California case brought by a group of public school teachers.
Conservative US Supreme Court justices have voiced support for a legal challenge that could erode organised labour’s clout by depriving public-employee unions of millions of dollars in fees that many state laws force non-union members to pay.
Bloomberg Businessweek’s Josh Eidelson shows the scene outside the U.S. Supreme Court where chants of “choice for teachers” ring out following a hearing on public sector union fees.
If the court upends fair-share fees, Blanning said, it could spark another debate over whether government unions must continue to represent all employees or be allowed to restrict services to paying members. If teachers, or other public employees, don’t have to pay for collective bargaining, then in the words of Justice Elena Kagan in 2014, “It would radically restructure the way workplaces across [this nation] are run”.
Justice Stephen Breyer pressed Carvin heavily on the role of stare decisis – the court’s practice of following its past precedents – and several of the four more liberal justices questioned what special reason there was to overrule Abood.
Being excused from paying for the union’s political activities is not enough, she said. That decision held that workers were not required to join unions or fund their political activities.
A ruling in favor of the non-union teachers would be a blow to organized labor because unionized teachers and other civil servants in states without “right-to-work” laws comprise its main power base. “And is it not true that many teachers are-strongly, strongly disagree with the union position on teacher tenure, on merit pay, on merit promotion, on classroom size?” the Justice said. Since public-sector unions are one of the Democratic party’s most generous backers, many Democrats fear their party will be weakened if the justices bar fair-share fees. Friedrichs says the union’s insistence on getting pay raises for some members forced the district to lay off excellent teachers, including a few whom she had invested time and energy in mentoring. Friedrichs, while teaching in Buena Park, Calif., felt the union culture benefited members at the expense of the students. Even if these employees opt-out of their union they must pay the vast majority of their dues in what is called “agency fees”. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy – other potential defectors from the pro-workers, anti-compelled-speech side – were similarly solid.
The pending Friedrichs case questions whether it is proper to force all teachers, regardless of whether they agree with these union decisions, to financially support the union.
Advertisement
But according to David Frederick, a lawyer for the union, the positions the union takes in contract negotiations are outside of what is typically protected by the First Amendment, as they involve what he contends are “bread-and butter employment issues”.
