Labor unions face tough challenge at the Supreme Court

The US Supreme Court will begin hearing oral arguments on Monday in a case over the question of whether public sector employees should be required to pay union fees, even if they are non-members.

At stake are millions of labor dollars in “agency fees” that unions collect from teachers, police and other public employees to pay for lobbying the government to raise their pay, give them more secure jobs and other similar benefits.

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

A 1977 Supreme Court decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education said that unions that collectively bargain on behalf of public employees can not require nonmembers to pay dues for political activity.

Lesa Curtis of Westchester, N.Y., (R), who is pro agency fees and a former president of her union, rallies outside the Supreme Court in Washington, Jan. 11, 2016.

“Since public employment contracts are submitted for public comment, that suggests this is different than private-sector collective bargaining”, explained Chief Justice Roberts, who was silent during the plaintiffs’ half of the argument and an active questioner of the union and governments (typically a sign of agreement with the former and disagreement with the latter).

Justice Stephen Breyer said overturning Abood would also require the court to overrule related cases, such as those on mandatory student fees at public universities, calling that “quite a big deal”.

The court’s liberal members defended the current practice, noting that the justices usually think twice before overturning such a long-standing precedent.

The case concerns only unions of public employees.

A ruling against unions in this case would not lead to a destruction of public sector unions, she said, though they “might not have the same money and the same power”. So wanting the district to pay a higher salary to teachers is a political position (presumably one most teachers back?) which is itself a form of political activism. It wouldn’t restrict in any way the ability of public teachers or other government employees to organize, join, or support a union, despite breathless union warnings otherwise. But several of the justices hinted at the difficulties of separating out political issues in a way that would not infringe upon the free-speech rights under the U.S. Constitution of non-members who disagree with the union.

About 90 percent of teachers and staff in New Haven are members of the union, and about 10 percent are not, he said. “Justice Scalia has always been alert to threats to free speech, and we find it hard to believe he would tolerate California’s coercive design”. The logic is that all teachers benefit when, for example, pay is increased, and the law shouldn’t allow free riders to reap those benefits without sharing in the costs of achieving them. Don’t pay dues and get none of the benefits.

“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”.

Undoing the 1977 decision would be the correct call for individual rights, and it might just improve public education.

Supporters of the union position say represented workers generally make more money.

Collective bargaining, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said, is inherently political when the government is the employer, and issues like merit pay, promotions and classroom size are subject to negotiation.

A decision is expected in June.