High court hears oral arguments in anti-union Friedrichs case

In the 1977 case Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the Supreme Court allowed public employees to opt out of paying for union political activities they objected to, such as supporting a candidate or initiative.

Williams spent the first portion of his time profiling the case’s main plaintiff in Los Angeles teacher Rebecca Friedrichs, who has argued that she should not have to participate and pay into the teacher’s union since it “forces her to subsidize union positions she opposes, violating free speech”. “The union is basically making these teachers compelled riders for issues on which they strongly disagree”.

“In this era of broken municipal budgets and a national crisis in public education”, a petition by the teachers said, “it is hard to imagine more politically charged issues than how much money strapped local governments should devote to public employees, or what policies public schools should adopt to best educate children”.

Unions that win a worker vote to become the exclusive representative for a workplace are required by law to represent all the workers. Pay dues and get the benefit of any negotiated raises. She says these teachers were loved by parents, their colleagues and even administrators. At the heart of the case is whether the collection of those fees violates these non-members’ First Amendment free-speech rights.

If a majority of the justices side with the teachers, public sector unions would lose funding from state government workers, damaging their ability to bargain for both members and nonmembers. The court’s decision could undercut the power and long-term survival of public sector unions in more than two dozen states.

“Our objection, of course, is with the agency fees”, Michael Carvin, lead counsel for the teachers, said before the court justices.

Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association pits 10 non-union California public school teachers and the Christian Educators Association International against the California Teachers Association, an influential union with 325,000 members. But the court in that case fell shy of overturning Abood, and several justices Monday seemed to test the implications of doing so this time. To opponents, unions are what give workers a voice, so limiting their power will adversely impact their communications and negotiations with employers.

Public sector employees’ union membership averages 17 percent in states that ban mandatory fees compared with 49 percent in states, such as OR, that allow mandatory fees, according to an amicus brief by a group of social scientists in support of the labor unions. The case before the justices was spearheaded by a conservative group called the Center for Individual Rights.

Labor union officials refer to mandatory fees as “fair share” fees because the money pays for the cost of collective bargaining and pursuing grievances. But the Friedrichs plaintiffs argue that collective bargaining in the public sector, even on pay and conditions, is by definition political.

Mark Janus, a state worker who lives in Springfield, traveled to Washington to hear the Friedrichs case argued.

Justice Elena Kagan warned that the challengers bear a heavy burden to overturn a almost 40-year-old case on which thousands of contracts and millions of employees rely.

A decision in Friedrichs is expected in the summer.