The End Of Unions? Upcoming Supreme Court Case Could Overturn Power To Collect Fees
When Marc Williams greets his high school students every morning, the last thing he wants to worry about is his upcoming teacher evaluation. Or what new regulations could be in store for next year, or how he will negotiate with the school’s administration should any issues arise in his classroom. He’s there to teach kids, not worry about his job.
It’s his union that takes on the brunt of the big issues affecting his Indianapolis school, and lobbies on behalf of his colleagues on their working conditions, he said. “All those different things that can get in the way of what we’re really there for, which is our students, to make sure they can be world-class citizens and lifelong learners. It's hard to do that when you're concerned about your working conditions,” Williams said.
But a Supreme Court case beginning Jan. 11 has union members like Williams wondering if a ruling could sound a death knell on labor organizations that have grown accustomed to heightened limitations and declining memberships in recent years. Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association will determine whether mandatory union dues violate workers' freedom of speech, and experts say a ruling could dictate the future of unions' ability to collect fees from their memberships in what plaintiffs hope will be a win for individual rights and defendants fear is an attack on collective bargaining.
A decision swaying against unions, experts say, could effectively implement a national right-to-work policy that secures the right of workers to choose not to pay agency fees and therefore guts unions’ power to finance themselves. Union leaders have warned that the plaintiffs' First Amendment argument at the root of the case is being dishonestly presented, framing the issue as one of individual rights and freedom of speech rather than a direct assault on unions and the fees they collect.
“Let's just talk about what's really going on here,” said Michael Mulgrew, president of the New York-based United Teachers Federation. “The membership is becoming more aware of it now ... they've all said, ‘We know what this is about. It's a way to attack unions.’ ”
The plaintiffs seek to overturn a 1977 Supreme Court ruling that upheld a Michigan law requiring public workers represented by unions to pay “agency fees” or “fair-share fees” — which go toward the unions’ chargeable costs of collective bargaining and representation, but not the costs of their political activity or lobbying. In effect, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education protected against “free riding,” a reality where workers may reap the benefits of union representation while forgoing the payments needed to keep the organizations afloat.
The lawsuit has been brought forward by Rebecca Friedrichs and nine other California schoolteachers, who have argued that unions are political bodies by nature and their agency fees are funding causes they disagree with. The plaintiffs, and other collective bargaining critics, have argued that if the country’s unions are truly representative of their membership, workers will still opt to pay the fees.
“We’re being asked to fund collective bargaining that’s highly political using taxpayer money and I don’t have a choice,” Friedrichs told the Washington Post in an August interview. “The official you put into office is on one side [of the table] and the union is on the other side and you’re bargaining for taxpayer money, only the taxpayer doesn’t get invited to the table. That’s political, in my opinion.”
But some labor experts say the ruling’s effects could go far beyond political speech ramifications: If agency fees The End Of Unions? Upcoming Supreme Court Case Could Overturn Power To Collect Fees:
