“It’s clearly part of a larger effort to undermine public-sector unions, which is really where the strength of the labor movement stands today”, Jeff Grabelsky of Cornell University’s Worker Institute told NBC News.
Advertisement
The basis of the teachers’ argument is that California’s current law violates non-union workers’ First Amendment free-speech rights by requiring them to pay fees that support a political cause. The lead plaintiff is Rebecca Friedrichs, who has taught for 27 years in the Savanna School District in northwest Orange County. “Every individual should have the right to decide” which organization she supports, said Friedrichs, a third-grade teacher from Anaheim whose case is championed by conservative legal organizations. By forcing them to pay for bargaining objectives they do not support, the law is therefore violating their First Amendment rights, they say. Even employees who are not union members must pay these fees, although they are allowed to opt-out of a portion of the fees that go directly toward political activities.
WASHINGTON A Supreme Court dispute over public-sector union fees could sap the finances of organized labor and further erode the power of the nation’s labor movement.
Chief Justice Roberts and Kennedy appeared unsympathetic to the California Teachers Association’s argument that non-members would become “free-riders” if not required to pay the fees to fund collective bargaining activities.
It is true that union members can benefit from union actions.
That lawsuit has been on hold pending the outcome of the California case.
“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”.
If the Supreme Court indeed proposes to overturn the Abood compromise, why not do so in a principled and logical manner? But as the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board wrote, “Justice Scalia has since voted with the majority in cases that recognized the First Amendment problems with union-fee schemes, including Harris and Knox v. SEIU in 2012”.
Unions are concerned that a ruling throwing out the fees would give workers less incentive to join even if they generally agree with a union’s political stances because they would get all the benefits of collective bargaining without having to pay for it.
“Make no mistake about it, this case is an attempt to shift the balance away from workers and in the favor of corporate interests”, said Heins. The petitioner also argues that an opt-out policy is burdensome, and that collective bargaining is inherently political.
At stake is the future power and financial health of public sector unions in the 23 states where they have a duty to bargain for both members and non-members alike.
“It was 40 years ago”, he repeated, questioning the effect on other related decisions – ranging from bar association fees to student activity fees. The only thing that will change is that a government union can no longer get a public employee fired for not paying them.
Advertisement
They’ve proved more successful than the blue-collar unions, but now find themselves under scrutiny due to their controversial role in trying to negotiate higher pay and other benefits from governments – which means those governments either need to raise taxes or siphon that money from other priorities.
