Supreme Court Appears Ready To Bankrupt Public-Employee Unions

The lawsuit, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, challenges the right of states to require public sector employees to pay compulsory dues to unions doing collective bargaining on their behalf.

But since 1977, the Court has said non-union employees can be required to pay a portion of union dues to cover the cost of collective bargaining and prevent “free riders” – workers who get the benefits of a union contract without paying for it.

A group of California public school teachers claims that such mandatory fees violate the First Amendment rights of workers who disagree with the union’s positions.

As for what the atypical swing justice thought of the case, Williams summarized what Justice Anthony Kennedy had to say: “Justice Anthony Kennedy said many teachers strongly disagree with the union’s position on tenure, merit pay and classroom size but are forced to subsidize it any way”.

“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”.

Roberts and Scalia seemed sceptical that unions would collapse without fees from non-union employees, in part because such fees are already banned in 25 states that have what is known as “right-to-work” laws.

Before reaching the Supreme Court, a federal district court ruled against the teachers, pointing to the precedent set in Abood, a ruling that was affirmed by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The case is about giving every worker a choice, Mackinac Center labor policy director Vinnie Vernuccio said.

The National Law Journal coverage included an assertion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of four liberals who appeared to side with the union, about some bar fees.

The high court is expected to issues its ruling by the end of June. CIR, however, argues that fair share fees violate the First Amendment and is asking the Court to overturn Abood – a move that some advocates say could reduce union membership and weaken the ability of unions to negotiate fair pay and safer workplaces.

But the teachers argue that unions have become more political over time.

Being excused from paying for the union’s political activities is not enough, she said. The Justices are hard to predict, but a majority seems prepared to rule that it is unconstitutional for governments to coerce workers to pay agency fees to government unions.

“It may limit their revenues somewhat, but they can compensate for that by being less involved in things like politics and tend to their knitting by representing their members in collective bargaining”, Carvin said.

But Ingrid Jaques, deputy editorial page editor for The Detroit News, notes that in states that aren’t “right to work”, opting out of the union requires hefty agency fees that very likely support activities outside of the collective bargaining process. The reduced funding for public sector unions would also drain a significant source of campaign cash for the Democratic candidates those unions support.

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 justices grappled with a similar issue in 2014 in a case concerning home health care workers, ruling that home health care workers who objected to union stances couldn’t be forced to pay union fees.