Supreme Court case could impact fight between Rauner, unions

Unions worry that a ruling throwing out the fees would give workers less incentive to join because they would get all the benefits of collective bargaining without having to pay for it. The court in that case, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, said the arrangement was justified to prevent non-members from becoming free riders. Frederick counters that the issue should be decided by the states, given their unique history of labor law.

Union officials say business groups, and other political opponents, are pursuing the issue precisely because they want to weaken unions and the work they do on such causes as raising the minimum wage and mandating paid sick leave. In California, some 325,000 teachers in more than 1,000 school districts are represented by the California Teachers Assocation and, to a lesser extent, the California Federation of Teachers.

The so-called “agency fees” are assessed to cover the cost of union negotiations and contract enforcement, which lawyers representing the union say is fair given that nonmembers benefit from the negotiations even without participating. She maintained that the court’s public employee cases historically were aimed at ensuring that “when the government acts as an employer”, it is in “the same position as a private employer”. Specifically, the union can’t bargain over pensions or tenure. These fees are now collected by unions in 23 states.

If the court finds fair share fees to be unconstitutional, “a religious objection at that point isn’t necessary”, said David Osborne, The Fairness Center’s president and general counsel.

Rebecca Friedrichs is the public face of the lawsuit that bears her name.

He noted that if unions lose, they’ll have to market themselves to potential members. The Court determined that unions may not spend nonmembers’ agency fees on “ideological activities unrelated to collective bargaining”. In 2013, the California Teachers Association collected $173.9 million in what attorneys characterized as dues.

But it seemed after arguments that the most the unions could hope for was a reprieve – perhaps remanding the case back for additional fact-finding on exactly the impact unions would feel if agency fees were not required. That decision held that workers were not required to join unions or fund their political activities. And if overturning Abood is the goal, Justice Elena Kagan said Carvin and the nonunion teachers carry “a heavy burden”.

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”.

The challenge to the California union has several twists. “Every individual should have the right to decide” which organization she supports, said Friedrichs, a third-grade teacher from Anaheim whose case is championed by conservative legal organizations. “All we’re talking about here is an efficient means for the government to determine what its contract with its workforce is going to be”. The case has implications in 22 states. Justice Antonin Scalia, Lee contends, is more in line with that doctrine than his right-wing bench-fellows. “Trust the teachers” was the favorite chant by the pro-Friedrichs activists, which was met with a “Let’s work together” chant from the union activists. Along with San Luis Obispo County teacher Irene Zavala, Harlan Elrich, a math teacher at Sanger High School near Fresno, and others, Friedrichs opposes mandatory fees charged by a teachers association to which they do not belong. We have allowed a poll tax on work. And it could make organizing child caregivers and other service workers much more hard.

Even laws imposing harsh penalties for public employee strikes were ineffective.

A photo shows the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC.

The Supreme Court seemed poised Monday to deliver a severe blow to organized labor. But at the very least, it could create incentives for unions to clean up their balance sheets and re-evaluate how they can remain relevant in the 21st century.

“Maybe Marbury v. Madison was wrong”, Breyer said, referring to one of the most important landmarks of American law.

“The only reason to do that would be to inflate the governor’s war chest”, Carvin stated. Specifically, she argues that union fees, like full union dues, are ultimately used for political aims. The challengers want to reverse the process, and be automatically exempt unless they opt in.

He wrote that the law requires that the union and the nonmember agree on the choice of charity, but it doesn’t provide a way to resolve related disputes.