The case for mandatory union fees

[Draggingtree]

:
Labour’s reasoning

The case for mandatory union fees

Jan 7th 2016, 16:22 BY S.M. | NEW YORK

ON MONDAY, we previewed a case the Supreme Court is set to hear on January 11th challenging the regime whereby public-sector employees have no choice but to pay union dues. The plaintiffs are teachers who refuse to join the California Teachers Association (CTA), the union that bargains on their behalf, and want to stop paying the “agency fees” that the CTA bills to non-members. They say that since negotiating with the government over salary, benefits and working conditions is “quintessentially political”, it is a violation of dissenting teachers’ freedom of speech to be coerced to pay “tribute” to unions undertaking that bargaining. In the previous post, we analysed the aggrieved teachers’ brief to the justices. Now we will consider the respondents’ arguments in favour of the arrangement that governs public-sector unions in nearly half of the states.

 

There are two parties to Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, who rise in defence of “agency fees”, also known as “fair-share fees”: a collection of teachers unions and Kamala Harris, the attorney general of California. The two briefs track similar terrain, though the attorney general’s brief takes more time to lay out the state’s interest in “permitting employees to bargain collectively through one representative, funded by all represented employees”.

[Draggingtree]

Supreme Court’s Big Labor Case Is About Free Speech, Not Unions

 

Monday, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a case that could stop forcing unionized workers to pay for activities they disagree with.

 

JANUARY 8, 2016 By Ilya Shapiro and Jayme Weber “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” So proclaimed the Supreme Court more than 60 years ago in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943).

 

Yet in 1977, in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the court went astray from its dedication to protecting freedom of speech and association in one particular but significant context. It ruled that states could require public-sector workers who were not union members to pay “agency fees” to support union politicking, so long as this political activity was pursued in the context of collective bargaining. Today, half the states have such “agency shop” laws. http://thefederalist.com/2016/01/08/supreme-courts-big-labor-case-is-about-free-speech-not-unions/

[Draggingtree]

Abood Back in the Cross Hairs

 

Oral argument in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, a potentially momentous case that challenges the constitutionality of “agency shop” clauses in public-sector union contracts, which require all employees in the bargaining unit to financially support the union. The seminal SCOTUS decision on this issue, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977) was subjected to withering criticism in Harris v. Quinn, 573 U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 2818 (2014), leading some observers (me included) to speculate that the Court may now be willing to overrule Abood altogether.

 

Abood applied the body of law dealing with compelled support of unions developed in the private sector under the National Labor Relations Act and Railway Labor Act (which I discuss here and here) to government employees, without adequately considering the many important differences between the private and public sectors. As a personal note, my interest in Friedrichs is heightened by the fact that one of my first published articles argued that Abood was incorrectly decided.

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/429396/friedrichs-california-teachers-abood-detroit-board-education

[Draggingtree]

Argument analysis: The question not asked

By Lyle Denniston on Jan 11, 2016 at 2:51 pm

 

Analysis

 

If it is true, as history seems to suggest, that labor unions almost always throw their support to liberal politicians and liberal public policies, that understanding would make more sense of Monday’s Supreme Court argument in a fundamentally important union case. That is really the only way to accept an underlying premise of the entire argument — one that simply was not put to the test by any questions.

 

The premise has two parts: first, everything a union representing government workers does in bargaining over workers’ benefits is, solely because it is a union making the demands, an action driven by ideology and politics; and, second, because of the political nature of the union, every non-union worker represented by that union objects to subsidizing anything it demands. Would there have been no value in questioning the breadth of either premise? Both went unexamined.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/01/argument-analysis-the-question-not-asked/

[Draggingtree]

Amy Howe Editor/Reporter

Posted Mon, January 11th, 2016 5:08 pm

Union fees in jeopardy: In Plain English

For nearly forty years, it has been settled that, although public employees who don’t join a union cannot be required to pay for the union’s political activities, they can be charged an “agency” or “fair share” fee to pay for other costs that the union incurs – for example, for collective bargaining. After over an hour of oral arguments today, public-employee unions are likely very nervous, as the Court’s more conservative Justices appeared ready to overrule the Court’s 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education and strike down the fees. Let’s talk about Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association in Plain English.

 

The most telling sign that lead plaintiff Rebecca Friedrichs and her fellow teachers are likely to prevail may have actually come from the Court’s four more liberal Justices, who spent relatively little time on the main legal issue before the Court – that is, whether requiring non-members to pay the fee violates the First Amendment. Instead, many of their questions centered on whether, even if Friedrichs has a stronger legal argument, the Court should still rule against her based on a legal doctrine known as “stare decisis” –

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/01/union-fees-in-jeopardy-in-plain-english/

[Draggingtree]

The End of Public Sector Agency Fees?

 

January 12, 2016

by Charlotte Garden, associate professor at Seattle University School of Law, and Litigation Director of the Korematsu Center for Law & Equality. Follow her on Twitter @CharlotteGarden

 

Lawyers are a naturally contrarian bunch, but there is near-unanimous agreement that yesterday’s oral argument in Friedrichs v. California Teacher’s Association went very badly for public sector unions and the public employers they bargain with. It is nearly inevitable that the decision will be 5-4, split along the usual line. It is also likely that Justice Alito will write the decision—that would be Chief Justice Roberts’s call, but Alito also authored the 2012 and 2014 opinions limiting public sector union fees and all but inviting Friedrichs; he will almost certainly be tapped to complete the trilogy.

 

At argument, five Justices seemed poised to adopt the view that public sector agency fee requirements—under which union-represented workers must pay their share of the costs of contract negotiation and administration—are unconstitutional because those contracts cover matters of public concern. Time and time again, the conservative justices returned to that theme. For example,

http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/the-end-of-public-sector-agency-fees

[Draggingtree]

January 17, 2016

The State of the Unions

By Michael Curtis

In his address to Congress on January 12, 2016, President Barack Obama asserted he was confident that “the State of our Union is strong.” He was of course referring to the Union of the United States. But by a curious coincidence the state of trade unions in the US and in the UK are undergoing controversial consideration, legal, and political, that may change their power, effectiveness and relations to political organizations.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court is now considering a case, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, brought by ten teachers in California, concerning the First Amendment to the Constitution. The teachers oppose the requirement forcing public sector workers to support unions. They want the Court to overrule the 1977 case, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education that allows unions to levy charges on non-members of unions. Some 23 states, mostly Democratic, and the District of Columbia allow such charges to occur.

 

The objection of the California teachers, is based on two factors: opposition to the political position that unions take; and simple refusal to join a union if inclined to see unions as unnecessary or irrelevant. California law requires http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/the_state_of_the_unions.html

[Draggingtree]

Looming setback for public unions would be a political earthquake

Betsy McCaughey — January 18, 2016

With Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court took on the outcome of one election. But the case heard by the Supreme Court on Monday could affect elections for many years.

 

The justices’ remarks during arguments in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association point to a major setback looming for public unions. The court will likely rule teachers and other unionized public workers don’t have to pay their unions for representation unless they want to.

 

That means unions will have much less money to spend tilting elections for Democrats. Not only in California, but also in 22 other states where public workers are forced to support the union whether they want to or not. It’s a political earthquake for New York, New Jersey and Connecticut – where unions dominate public employment and politics.

 

In this case, Rebecca Friedrichs and nine other California public-school teachers don’t want to support the California Teachers Association,

http://www.aim.org/guest-column/looming-setback-for-public-unions-would-be-a-political-earthquake/