Supreme Court appears ready to scrap mandatory union fees

A majority of the Supreme Court appears poised to overrule a 1977 case allowing public sector union “agency fees” – a ruling that would end the fees, which are paid by non-members to support public sector unions’ collective bargaining work.

The lead plaintiff in the case is Rebecca Friedrichs, a public school teacher in Orange County, California, who says she left the California Teachers Association after becoming disillusioned with its mission.

The union backers said more than 90 percent of teachers belong to the union, and more than 90 percent of nonmembers still pay the fees. They were not members of the union and already had opted out of paying toward its spending on political activities.

Friedrichs v. the California Teachers Association challenges a 39-year-old decision that allows a union to collect fees from everyone it negotiates for, even if they choose not to become a union member. Collective bargaining is different, the unions say, adding that the plaintiffs are seeking to reap the benefits of such bargaining without paying their fair share of the cost.

Friedrichs and the nine teachers that joined her in the suit say that because the work of unions is “inherently political”, being compelled to contribute raises constitutional violations.

While the position of the more conservative Supreme Court justices was clear, so too was that of the high court’s four liberal justices, who expressed concerns over the notion of overturning long-standing precedent.

A Supreme Court dispute over public-sector union fees could sap the finances of organized labor and further erode the power of the nation’s labor movement.

“The problem is that everything that is collectively bargained with the government is within the political sphere, nearly by definition”, he said. In Friedrich’s view, those mandatory fees violate her First Amendment rights by forcing her to associate herself with a political agenda that she has no desire to be associated with.

California teachers generally pay around $US1,000 annually in union dues.

A decision siding against the unions “would call into question thousands of public-sector contracts covering 9.5 million public employees and affecting scores of critical services, including police, fire, emergency response and, of course, education”, David Frederick, a lawyer representing the California unions, told NBC News.

Edward C. Dumont, speaking on behalf of the Attorney General of California, argued that agency-fee arrangements benefit government employers because they help ensure stable labor-management relations.

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. Under a previous Supreme Court ruling, employees are not required to pay a second part of the union dues, which supports political activities.

A decision is expected in June.

“We’re asking that teachers be able to decide for ourselves, without fear or coercion, whether or not to join or fund a union”, Friedrichs said in an interview with Reason.com last summer. “In some cases, the unions have backed certain candidates, which goes against what the taxpayers are looking for”. And remember, as Wisconsin showed, state’s can strip unions of these rights all by themselves.