In this first day of oral arguments for Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, it’s not looking good for the unions.
Advertisement
The nation’s 25 right-to-work states already bar public employee unions from requiring membership or collecting agency fees, but those unions remain reasonably robust anyway.
Labor unions grew alarmed last June when the court agreed to hear the case, Friedrichs v California Teachers Association, fearing that the justices would hobble public-sector unions by barring any requirement that government employees pay fees to the unions that represent them.
Kennedy said the unions are “making these teachers “compelled riders” for issues on which they strongly disagree”.
David C. Frederick, representing the California Teachers Association, argued that overruling the precedent for collecting agency fees would disrupt labor-management systems “in almost half the country” (23 states, including NY and California, have passed laws establishing agency-fee arrangements).
“The problem”, Justice Antonin Scalia declared at one point, “is that everything that is collectively bargained with the government is within the political sphere, nearly by definition”. Public-employee union negotiations necessarily affect public policy decisions on government spending and taxes, and issues such as seniority and educational policy.
Opponents of compulsory union dues applauded the justices following Monday’s arguments. 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.
“They seem to survive”, Scalia said. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling.
The public sector is unionized at more than five times the rate of the private sector, but if public employees can reap the benefits of union-negotiated contracts without paying mandatory fees, then it’s quite likely that many of them will opt out of paying them. Non-members don’t pay the same fees as members. Today’s case was spearheaded by a conservative group called the Center for Individual Rights. Friedrichs and her allies argue that being required to pay union fees to a union whose views she disagrees with as a nonmember is a violation of her free speech rights.
Justice Elena Kagan challenged Carvin on that assertion.
Twenty-three states now host public sector unions that require “fair share fees”.
“That’s quite a big deal”, Breyer said. She said that forces her to subsidize union positions she opposes, violating free speech.
But opponents say it violates workers’ First Amendment rights if they’re forced to pay for lobbying that they don’t agree with – and the Republican-appointed justices seemed inclined to agree. “But the State also has critical interests in being free to manage the public workplace”.
Unions say the teachers’ First Amendment argument is a ruse.
Advertisement
If SCOTUS rules against them, it means public employees will get all the benefits of belonging to a union (better wages and working conditions) without actually paying dues. Currently, workers must “opt out” of the political fees by checking a box on a form. And in California and some 20 other states, unions are allowed to collect some dues from non-members for that representation.
