Union setback looms in case before justices

Representing teacher Rebecca Friedrichs, Carvin argued that the First Amendment bars California from forcing Friedrichs to pay money to a union with which she disagrees and has chosen not to join. At issue is whether state governments may force public-sector workers to pay union fees, as a condition of employment, regardless of whether or not those workers are union members. Based heavily on the rationale of labor peace, the Abood decision permits public employee unions to collect mandatory fees in most states that do not have right-to-work laws. “Even the defendants admit that only about probably less than ten percent of teachers in California would want to take advantage of this, if the court rules against the unions”. These fees cover what it costs the union to represent them in bargaining as long as the money does not go for political purposes.

On Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, a case that challenges the compelled union dues paid by millions of organized public-sector employees.

A large crowd of union workers rallied outside the Supreme Court Monday.

We filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the Teachers’ Union on behalf of a Public Safety Coalition of nearly half a million employees.

In fact, Roberts asked for an an example of “non-political speech” that the union negotiates.

If the Supreme Court indeed proposes to overturn the Abood compromise, why not do so in a principled and logical manner?

Non-members can opt out of paying the union’s political activities, which means they pay around $600 a year in mandatory fees to fund collective bargaining.

Undoing the 1977 decision would be the correct call for individual rights, and it might just improve public education. While they may not be freed from paying representational dues to a union they don’t support with this case, these workers still have hope. She said that overruling Abood would jeopardize fees collected from lawyers who are members of mandatory bars and activity fees collected from students at public universities.

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.

USA conservatives have long sought to curb the influence of unions representing public employees. The fee does not cover political activities of the union, only the cost of services the unions must, by law, provide.

Those teachers who disagree with the union position should not have to subsidize views with which they disagree, Kennedy said, adding that the current system creates “a whole class of persons whose speech has been silenced”.

“In the case of PECG, or any organization, this decision could impact revenue”, Blanning said, “but we’ve been without fair share fees in the past”. Our Justice correspondent Pete wings explains why it’s a case that some say could be the beginning of the end for government unions.

This ruling was created to cut down on the number of “free riders”, or public employees who enjoy the benefits of unions negotiating their contracts without having to pay any financial compensation.

Roberts said the majority of the California teachers union’s members appeared to back collective bargaining, making the “free-riders” concern “really insignificant”.