Supreme Court to hear landmark public-employee union finances case

The case is Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, and involves whether requiring teachers and other government employees to pay union dues or fees violates their right to free speech.

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”. Chief Justice John Roberts said even minor matters such as working hours or mileage reimbursements are “always a public policy issue”, and Justice Antonin Scalia agreed that the pay, benefits and conditions public employee unions negotiate are “necessarily political questions”.

National Nurses United, the nurses organization nationwide, said it will hold a protest Monday outside of the Supreme Court building in Washington D.C.in support for Abood and the CTA – stating the Friedrichs case “poses a significant threat to public health, safety and quality of life”.

“The problem is that everything that is collectively bargained with the government is within the political sphere, nearly by definition”, he said. But all of them appeared relegated to history during the Friedrichs hearing on Monday, with Scalia sounding every bit as skeptical as his conservative colleagues of the unions’ arguments for collecting fees from nonmembers.

But at the federal level, where unions can not collect such agency fees, union membership is 30 percent, union supporters said.

The teachers who brought the current case say that decision got it wrong, because there’s no real distinction between a public employee union’s political and non-political activities. Although Justice Clarence Thomas said nothing Monday, as is his usual practice, it does appear that the same five justices are prepare to overrule Abood with Friedrichs.

Bruce Rauner issued an executive order previous year ending the requirement that state employees who don’t want to join their union pay the fees.

No question about it. And if SCOTUS goes in the direction it indicated today, conservatives will cheer, not just because they tend to hate unions these days, but because the public sector has been the most robust area for union expansion for quite some time. “Many teachers think that they are devoted to the future of America, to the future of our young people, and that the union is equally devoted to that, but that the union is absolutely wrong in some of its positions”.

USA conservatives have long sought to curb the influence of unions representing public employees like police, firefighters and teachers that often support the Democratic Party and liberal causes. The legal argument in the case is that all union activity is inherently political, even contract negotiations, and therefore requiring non-members to pay fees to cover bargaining costs still amounts to compelling them to pay for political speech that they disagree with. It has stopped short of overturning it both times, but four justices joined a 2014 opinion by Justice Samuel Alito that called Abood “questionable”. The pro-union argument states that non-union members should not get a “free ride” if they benefit from collective-bargaining agreements heralded by the union but do not pay related fees.

A decision isn’t expected until June.