Debate, reaction to Supreme Court hearing challenge to CA union fees law

The U.S. Supreme Court takes up a case Monday that could deal a crippling blow to unions representing millions of the nation’s public employees. Union members pay about $4 per month more than non-members. Attorney Elaine Williams explains, they pay what’s called a “fair share”.

The court’s decision likely won’t be made public until summer. “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.

“The problem is that everything that is collectively bargained with the government is within the political sphere, nearly by definition”, he said.

At issue: The plaintiffs, who were recruited by the far-right Center for Individual Rights, say that it’s a violation of their First Amendment rights to have to pay a fee for the services they get from their union, like collective bargaining and grievance representation.

“We’re talking about workers in roughly half the states in the country getting the same rights as workers in the other half”, he said.

The justices appeared divided along familiar lines during an extended argument over whether government workers who choose not to join unions may nonetheless be required to help pay for collective bargaining. Friedrichs is the culmination of a decades-long right-wing effort to undermine public unions.

Among public sector workers, 35.7 percent belong to unions, compared to 6.6 percent in the private sector, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

That lawsuit has been on hold pending the outcome of the California case.

While unionized employees are able to get out of paying the portion of their dues that funds spending on overt political positions through a complicated and often intimidating opt-out process, they are required to pay dues for representational activities-known as agency or “fair share” fees.

Since most of the California teachers union’s members appear to support collective bargaining, “it seems to me the free-rider concern that’s been raised is really insignificant”, said Roberts.

And what happens if, in yet another 5-4 ruling, the high court rules against agency fees? Once a majority of workers vote to be represented by a public sector union, the union must represent all workers, even non-union members.

“It may limit their revenues somewhat, but they can compensate for that by being less involved in things like politics and tend to their knitting by representing their members in collective bargaining”, Carvin said.

Being excused from paying for the union’s political activities is not enough, she said.

Ms. Friedrichs, a teacher for 28 years who works in an elementary school near Anaheim, is lead plaintiff in a case set for oral arguments Monday.

In 2014 the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] affirmed [opinion, PDF] the lower court decision that ruled in favor of the unions. They say even a push for higher salaries and pension benefits raises political questions about the best use of tax dollars for cash-strapped localities.