California teacher Rebecca Friedrichs is suing the California Teachers Association, arguing that being required to pay the non-member “agency” fees violates her First Amendment Rights.
Advertisement
“The problem is that everything that is collectively bargained with the government is within the political sphere, nearly by definition”, Scalia said during the arguments.
But it seemed after arguments that the most the unions could hope for was a reprieve – perhaps remanding the case back for additional fact-finding on exactly the impact unions would feel if agency fees were not required. Yet she is still compelled to pay fees covering the union’s collective-bargaining activities.
This is an important case to watch, because public employee jobs used to represent the pathway for African-American workers to enter the middle-class.
In contrast, NBC Nightly News and Justice correspondent Pete Williams offered a full segment on what’s arguably one of the Court’s top cases this term, but fretted that a ruling against unions “could deal a crippling blow” to them and the “contracts for 10 million public employees nationwide”. The case: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association.
That charge – that agency fees violate nonunion workers’ free-speech rights – could undo a almost 40-year-old precedent that said precisely the opposite: that collecting the fees is “constitutionally justified”.
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). “Many teachers strongly, strongly disagree with the union position on teacher tenure, on merit pay, on merit promotion, on classroom size”, Kennedy stated, adding that the requirement to pay the dues ultimately forces teachers and employees who do not agree with those positions to “nevertheless subsidize the union on those very points”, in flagrant disregard of the First Amendment.
If the Supreme Court sides with the plaintiffs in the case, it could cost unions tens of millions of dollars, and will change the face of education.
Under a 1977 Supreme Court ruling, public union workers have to pay for their union bargaining but not the money unions give to political campaigns.
We’ll find out by the end of June. “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”.
U.S. conservatives have long sought to curb the influence of unions representing public employees like police, firefighters and teachers that often support the Democratic Party and liberal causes.
Advertisement
“The current fair share system is a good compromise and common sense solution, and that’s part of the argument we presented to the Supreme Court Justices today”, said CTA President Eric C. Heins, who attended the arguments, according to a CTA press release. As a result, public sector unions are allowed to collect fair-share fees from non-union members in order to prevent “free riders” from receiving union benefits without contributing to the cost of providing those benefits.
