Supreme Court Sceptical Of Mandatory Union Fees

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. Non-members can opt out of paying for union political activities, which means they pay around $US600 a year in mandatory fees covering collective bargaining.

But opponents say it violates workers’ First Amendment rights if they’re forced to pay for lobbying that they don’t agree with – and the Republican-appointed justices seemed inclined to agree.

“I would not feel very good about my prospects if I were the unions, given what we’ve seen from the Roberts court in the past two years” says Erin Murphy, a Washington, DC lawyer who specializes in federal appeals court cases. But because the union spends other money-money from people who pay full dues-on politics, these plaintiffs feel they shouldn’t have to pay anything.

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. Research from the Mackinac Center shows that only about one in five unionized employees in these states exercise this right.

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).

Vernuccio emphasized that a victory for Friedrichs would not restrict unions’ ability to negotiate over pay, benefits, or working conditions. “What happens to the country thinking of us as a kind of stability in a world that is tough because it changes a lot?” Justice Stephen G. Breyer demanded.

A decision in the case, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, 14-915, is expected by late June.

Liberal analysts were disappointed with the direction of the justices’ questions.

While labor unions are focused on a worst-case scenario in which the court would prohibit all mandatory fees, the court also could make a more limited ruling, Cunningham-Parmeter said.

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.

One option short of overturning Abood would be for the justices to allow an opt-in procedure.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs contend that despite the original intent to ensure that union dues by non-members are not utilized for political causes, the unions have become increasingly political over time.

“Where the state imposes upon the union a duty to deliver services, it may permit the union to demand reimbursement for them”, Scalia wrote, “or, looked at from the other end, where the state creates in the nonmembers a legal entitlement from the union, it may compel them to pay the cost”.

“Our belief is this truly is another attempt by the haves to have more and to have the have nots just do what they’re told”, said Hanna Vaandering, president of the Oregon Education Association, which represents 43,000 teachers and support staff at community college and K-12 campuses.