Justices hint at siding with plaintiff in Friedrichs case; would end “fair”

OR is one of more than 20 states that could feel significant impacts from a U.S. Supreme Court case that seeks to strip a longstanding power of public sector labor unions to collect fees from workers who decline to join.

The Supreme Court yesterday took up the case of Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, which was filed by ten California teachers who argue that, since they decline to belong to the teachers’ union, they should not have to pay any dues to said union.

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.

Massachusetts, along with 24 other states and the District of Columbia, authorize “agency fee” requirements at the public sector unions that represent government employees including police, firefighters, teachers and health-care workers.

Labor officials fear unions’ very existence could be threatened if workers are allowed to get all the benefits of representation without at least paying fees to cover the costs of collective bargaining.

In this first day of oral arguments for Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, it’s not looking good for the unions.

The unions say their survival may depend on being able to continue charging the fees, arguing that their lobbying for better conditions and higher pay helps all union members, even those who don’t share the same views.

“The problem”, Justice Antonin Scalia declared at one point, “is that everything that is collectively bargained with the government is within the political sphere, nearly by definition”. She said that overruling Abood would jeopardize fees collected from lawyers who are members of mandatory bars and activity fees collected from students at public universities.

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

“The union is basically making the teachers “compelled-riders” on issues with which they strongly disagree”, he said. A ruling for the plaintiffs “isn’t going to be a huge death knell to the unions like they’re trying to make it out to be”, Vernuccio concluded.

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.

But Chief Justice John Roberts responded that even mundane matters have the potential to become political whenever state money is involved. “In some cases, the unions have backed certain candidates, which goes against what the taxpayers are looking for”.

“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”.

In his comments during the arguments, Justice Anthony Kennedy – who often provides the decisive swing vote between the court’s liberal and conservative factions, seemed to favor rejecting the union’s power to collect fees from non-members.

The court is not expected to issue a decision until the end of its session in June. It seems to us that the court is really being asked to decide whether public employee unions have become too powerful and need to be reined in.