The lawsuit, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, challenges the right of states to require public sector employees to pay compulsory dues to unions doing collective bargaining on their behalf.
Advertisement
The teachers who brought the current case say that decision got it wrong, because there’s no real distinction between a public employee union’s political and non-political activities.
Lawyers for the pro-union California Teachers Association said the fee ensures non-members do not become “free riders”, reaping the dividends of collective bargaining without paying their fair share.
Ms. Friedrichs, a teacher for 28 years who works in an elementary school near Anaheim, is lead plaintiff in a case set for oral arguments Monday.
Would this case set a precedent for people in private-sector unions? Under a previous Supreme Court ruling, employees are not required to pay a second part of union dues that supports political activities.
All that said, though, the justices would do well to side with the non-union teachers, who have a First Amendment right not to be compelled to support political speech they disagree with.
Union membership in the USA has almost halved since the 1980s due to a wide variety of reasons, This decision will likely only accelerate that decline.
Unlike the private workplace, where compensation and employee decisions are based on economics, in the public workplace, these decisions are political.
About 5 million public sector employees are subject to union contracts that include mandatory fee provisions, according to the National Right to Work Legal Defence Foundation, which backs the non-union teachers.
Hearing arguments Monday in Washington, pivotal justices voiced support for California teachers who contend their First Amendments rights are being violated.
While the progressive justices focused on the importance of stare decisis – respecting precedent and the reliance interests built up around it – that didn’t appear to be a major concern for anyone else, regardless of the age of the ruling that’s now under attack (Abood v. Detroit Board of Education from 1977). The case before the justices was spearheaded by a conservative group called the Center for Individual Rights. He said the fees for collective bargaining typically apply to non-political issues such as mileage reimbursement, working hours and other mundane matters.
Rebecca Friedrichs, a California public school teacher, is challenging the constitutionality of being forced to give money to the union that represents teachers in her school district.
In the public sphere, he said, negotiations between unions and government could not be separated from controversial public policy questions such as merit pay for teachers or layoff policies that rely on seniority rather than teacher performance. Payments from non-union members that go toward collective bargaining – known as “agency fees” – are a substantial source of funding for unions in those states.
The court ruled unanimously in 1977 that a public-sector union does not engage in political activity when it represents state or local government employees on issues like wages, so it can charge those costs to all employees. California teachers generally pay around $1,000 a year in union dues. Our Justice correspondent Pete wings explains why it’s a case that some say could be the beginning of the end for government unions.
Advertisement
A ruling is expected in June.
