Supreme Court Appears Poised To End Public Sector Union Fee Requirements

A legal brief filed at the Supreme Court by the conservative Buckeye Institute in Columbus described the agency fees as garnered by “state coercion” and argued that unions in so-called “right-to-work” states are more conservative in their spending on overhead costs.

The outcome on this case could have far-reaching consequences as twenty-three states require that non-union teachers pay a portion of teacher union dues.

Following a soundbite from the third grade teacher, Williams reported that “roughly half of the states require non-union members to pay a share of dues for collective bargaining” and union defenders worry that a “loss would cast a cloud over contracts for millions of police officers, firefighters, teachers, and nurses nationwide, but the Court seems prepared to rule against the unions“.

Ms. Friedrichs, a teacher for 28 years who works in an elementary school near Anaheim, is lead plaintiff in a case set for oral arguments Monday.

David C. Frederick, a lawyer for the teachers union, said public employees are different than other workers, and the state has an interest in promoting the welfare of unions so that it can have a strong negotiating partner with which to work. But the Friedrichs plaintiffs argue that collective bargaining in the public sector, even on pay and conditions, is by definition political. Indeed, Roberts argued that if unions do a good job, they should be able to convince the great majority of workers to continue paying union fees.

About 10 percent of eligible workers seek the rebate, she said. DuMont also stressed that if Friedrichs and others like her are not forced to pay fees to the union, they will become “free riders” on union efforts that benefit them.

“The union basically is making these teachers compelled riders for issues on which they strongly disagree”, Kennedy said, noting the political nature of bargaining issues such as teacher salaries, promotions and class size. Public sector workers are nearly six times more likely to belong to a union than those in the private sector.

“In this era of broken municipal budgets and a national crisis in public education, it is hard to imagine more politically charged issues than how much money local governments should devote to public employees, or what policies schools should adopt to best educate their children”, says Michael Carvin, a lawyer for the challengers. Though a leader of the court’s conservative wing, Scalia was considered a potential swing vote in Friedrichs, who might back the union’s position.

The Supreme Court seemed poised on Monday to deliver a severe blow to organized labor.

“If this goes the wrong way for the unions, they’re going to have a lot less money, period”, Center for Responsive Politics spokeswoman Viveca Novak told The Atlantic. They are asking the Supreme Court to overturn a 1977 case, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, that upheld agency fees.

A decision in the case, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, 14-915, is expected by late June. The fees, the law says, are meant to pay for collective bargaining activities, including “the cost of lobbying activities”. The petitioner’s argument hinges on the idea that a nonmember should not be required to subsidize an outside advocacy group such as a union.