Supreme Court questions fees in union issue

The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative wing cast doubt on requirements in more than 20 states that public- sector workers pay fees to the union that represents them.

The group, funded by the Koch brothers and others determined to continue manipulating the rules of our economy-and our democracy-fast-tracked the case through the district and 9th circuit courts to bring it to Chief Justice Roberts’ Supreme Court, which will hear oral arguments on Monday. Studies from other states show that eliminating fair share fees will reduce public employee membership rates and wages.

Justice Antonin Scalia in the past has expressed sympathy for the view that the unions needed to collect the fees to prevent “free riders” – those who benefit from the agreements unions reach with government employers but do not pay for the union’s costs. Even before Monday’s argument, they had reason to be hopeful that their side would prevail in the case, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, No. 14-915.

Conservative US Supreme Court justices have voiced support for a legal challenge that could erode organised labour’s clout by depriving public-employee unions of millions of dollars in fees that many state laws force non-union members to pay. Specifically, she argues that union fees, like full union dues, are ultimately used for political aims. If that’s how the case goes, it would be a huge victory for workers’ rights, the First Amendment, and educational freedom – and probably the most important ruling this term. And compelling them to support the advancement of political policies they oppose seemingly violates the First Amendment.

Second, when it comes to public sector unions, all issues subject to collective bargaining are inherently political.

Roberts said the majority of the California teachers union’s members appeared to back collective bargaining, making the “free-riders” concern “really insignificant”. Unions have contributed positively in many places; their policies can be democratically influenced by their members; and their proper role should be decided politically, not in a Supreme Court decision that would inevitably be seen as favoring one party over the other, since unions have been the traditional allies of Democrats. What’s so disappointing and frightening is that this is so wrong and so obviously wrong: “telling someone they can only keep their job if they pay the union”.

“The problem is that everything that is collectively bargained with the government is within the political sphere, nearly by definition”, he said.

“We recognize that many public employees agree with their union and want to support it. But the fact is that some do not”. They’re about silencing the political voice of teacher unions by cutting off their revenues.

“Mandatory agency fees ensure that all employees in a particular bargaining unit pay a fair share of the cost of the representation”, wrote Harris in her brief.

Such agency fees are permitted in private workplaces under federal law, but it took the Abood case to allow for such fees to be assessed in public sector unions since public employees aren’t covered under the federal law.

Justice Elena Kagan defended the status quo, and said the challengers “come here with a heavy burden” by asking the court to overturn a precedent that has been in place for four decades and on which both government and unions have come to rely.

The union members who were laid off certainly did not benefit from union activities.

A court decision is expected by the end of June, when the current term expires.

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”.