Supreme Court conservatives indicate they’ll rule against unions

Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association seeks to strike down the requirement of California and more than 20 other states that public employees fund the union that bargains on their behalf even if they aren’t members of the union.

The nine justices are weighing a challenge brought by a group of California public school teachers who say they should not be forced to pay dues to the state union that negotiates their collective contract. The court’s four Democratic appointees said the court should stick with its long-standing rule that unions can charge a “fair-share fee” to all employees who benefit from collective bargaining.

Union opponents are seeking to reverse a 1977 Supreme Court decision that allows public employee unions to collect so-called “fair share fees”. Unions say a Supreme Court loss would cast a cloud over contracts for millions of police officers, firefighters, teachers, and nurses nationwide, but the Court seems prepared to rule against the unions.

A case being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court Monday could cause fallout for public employee unions in IL. “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.

The actual defendant in the case, the California Teachers Association, has been an important part of the coalition that has helped Democrats break decades of gridlock in Sacramento.

According to statistics compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, public sector unions focus many of their contributions on members of Congress from both parties who sit on committees that deal with federal budgets and agencies.

A ruling favouring the non-union teachers would be a blow to organised labour because unionised teachers and other civil servants in states without “right-to-work” laws comprise its main power base.

Several justices hinted at the difficulties of separating out political issues in a way that would not infringe upon the free-speech rights under the US Constitution of non-members who disagree with the union.

Half the states already have right-to-work laws banning mandatory fees, but about 80 percent of workers represented by public-employee unions are in states that don’t, including California, New York and IL.

Second, although the Abood case allowed opting out of dues earmarked for political activism, opting out typically is hard to do.

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).

Justice Anthony Kennedy said the current system compels teachers to support issues they don’t agree with.

A decision is expected by the end of the court’s term in June.

Unions have contributed positively in many places; their policies can be democratically influenced by their members; and their proper role should be decided politically, not in a Supreme Court decision that would inevitably be seen as favoring one party over the other, since unions have been the traditional allies of Democrats.

In the public sphere, he said, negotiations between unions and government could not be separated from controversial public policy questions such as merit pay for teachers or layoff policies that rely on seniority rather than teacher performance.

If Friedrichs is successful, agency fees will be prohibited.