The teachers asserted that California law violated non-union workers’ free-speech rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by requiring them to pay the agency fees towards collective bargaining activities.
Advertisement
“The union is basically making the teachers “compelled-riders” on issues with which they strongly disagree”, he said.
“We think Abood was incorrectly decided from the beginning … but in addition to that, one thing that has changed which has brought the issue into more sort of a clearer focus is that unions have become more and more political, and it is becoming more and more clear that even the things they negotiate for in collective bargaining have a direct connection to political disputes”, Pell said on the call.
Half the states already have right-to-work laws banning mandatory fees, but most members of public-employee unions are concentrated in states that don’t, including California, New York and IL.
The Supreme Court on Monday will consider a legal challenge on a 1977 ruling in a case against the California Teachers Association, the state’s largest teachers union, which could threaten the financial strength of public-employee unions nationwide.
The so-called “agency fees” are assessed to cover the cost of union negotiations and contract enforcement, which lawyers representing the union say is fair given that nonmembers benefit from the negotiations even without participating.
“His visit was coordinated through the American Federation of Teachers, as he’s a well-respected teacher who has done a lot of social justice work with his students over the years”, said Aviva Bowen, communications director for the Illinois Federation of Teachers. The case – Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association – is about an effort by some teachers to defect from the California Teachers Association (CTA) without having to pay a fee to belong to their state and local unions.
“Outlawing fair-share fees will override the judgements of 23 States plus the District of Columbia that have enacted statutory collective-bargaining frameworks covering public-education employees”, David C. Frederick, a lawyer for the union, argued in court papers.
“That’s always a public policy issue”, Roberts said. When budgets were tight, instead of doing battle with the administration she had to fight her union.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority signaled Monday that it is likely to substantially weaken government employee unions by overruling a 1977 decision that has allowed the unions to charge nonmembers for the costs of representing them.
But the challengers say it’s impossible to separate their funds from the public unions’ political actions. He said the state has a strong interest in promoting efficiency and avoiding costly workplace disruptions by designating the union as the exclusive bargaining representative for workers. 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. Therefore by giving any support to a government union, public employees are funding politics. It wouldn’t restrict in any way the ability of public teachers or other government employees to organize, join, or support a union, despite breathless union warnings otherwise.
California is among roughly two dozen states with laws on the books under which unions are required to bargain for both members and non-members. The teachers are backed by the conservative Center for Individual Rights.
“While some may see this attack as only impacting unions, the reality is this is a direct strike at the middle class”, she said.
Justice Antonin Scalia in the past has expressed sympathy for the view that the unions needed to collect the fees to prevent “free riders” – those who benefit from the agreements unions reach with government employers but do not pay for the union’s costs. More than half of union-represented workers in the public sector are women.
Advertisement
A free-speech ruling in favor of the anti-union teachers could have an effect in other areas.
