Frederick counters that the issue should be decided by the states, given their unique history of labor law.
Advertisement
The public school educators argue that the mandatory fees violate the constitutional rights of workers who disagree with the union’s positions.
Rebecca Friedrichs and nine other California teachers are not all wrong in their critique of the oversized influence and self-interest of teachers unions. No worker can be legally required to join a union, but to avoid free-riders, they can be required to fund its nonpolitical activities. “What is bargained for is in all cases a matter of public interest”. Specifically, the union can’t bargain over pensions or tenure.
For another, deciding for the teachers would allow non-members to be “free riders” who could collect the wages and benefits the union negotiates without having to help pay the union’s costs.
Justice Stephen Breyer said overturning Abood would require the court to overrule several related cases in which the high court has approved mandatory payments by lawyers to bar associations and mandatory student fees at public universities, calling that “quite a big deal”. The case hinges on two main arguments. After 28 years on the job, she is now a third grade teacher in Buena Park near Anaheim, Calif. The supposed compromise quickly devolved into an injustice for teachers and other public employees who don’t want to support a union. All five conservative justices expressed their exasperation at the argument that unions should be able to charge non-members for collective bargaining, and showed sympathy for the teachers who went to court to say such fees violate their First Amendment rights.
Earlier today, the Supreme Court heard arguments for Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association. Three vote for one restaurant, the fourth for another.
“You come here with a heavy burden”, Justice Elena Kagan told the teachers’ lawyer, Michael Carvin. “There is no restriction on any individual employee’s speech… either in the workplace or out of the workplace”, he said. “They’re not talking, necessarily, about the pressure (to join the union), but that when we’re talking about public sector unions they’re spending tax payer money, therefore they’re political”. “All we’re talking about here is an efficient means for the government to determine what its contract with its workforce is going to be”. The case has implications in 22 states.
Arguing in support of the union, California Solicitor General Edward Dumont said fees for collective bargaining typically apply to non-political issues such as mileage reimbursement or working hours.
It could also be a blow to the state Democratic Party, which has become addicted to union money. And more importantly, it would inevitably weaken unions.
Patrick Colligan, president of the New Jersey State Policemen’s Benevolent Association, said the benefits of membership, such as legal protection, give him confidence a ruling against mandatory membership dues wouldn’t devastate the organization. “There is nothing in the agency fee process that prevents teachers from speaking out”. Instead, teachers should “opt in” if they wish to pay the full amount.
“The [most]…important issue in this case is whether the Supreme Court will undermine the ability of unions to effectively represent all of their workers at the bargaining table”. And it could make organizing child caregivers and other service workers much more hard.
Even laws imposing harsh penalties for public employee strikes were ineffective.
But Pennsylvania’s fair share law could be affected more broadly by what happens at the Supreme Court.
In Monday’s case, the union and almost half the states urge the Supreme Court not to risk that kind of chaos again. Abolishing fair share, the federation wrote, would be “far more disruptive to state educational systems than petitioners are willing to acknowledge”.
Advertisement
This is a case in which there are tens of thousands of contracts with these provisions.
