Vital labor case gets more time from Supreme Court
When the U.S. Supreme Court last month approved a request from government attorneys to extend time for oral arguments in “Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association” – a case involving the right of public unions to require workers in bargaining units to share in the costs of representation – it signaled the seriousness of the issue, and also the vital stakes for all working Americans.
When the U.S. Supreme Court last month approved a request from government attorneys to extend time for oral arguments in “Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association” – a case involving the right of public unions to require workers in bargaining units to share in the costs of representation – it signaled the seriousness of the issue, and also the vital stakes for all working Americans.
The court added an extra 10 minutes to the time lawyers for the state of California and the federal government have to argue their case during the Jan. 11 appearance. The defendant is the teachers union, but the state and federal government are adding their voices on behalf of the U.S. Constitution and, really, private enterprise – here, unions – for the protection of free-market transactions requiring payment for services.
Plaintiffs’ counsel also was given an additional 10 minutes.
The court will consider overturning a Supreme Court ruling from 38 years ago that states may require public workers to join a union or pay a fee to cover costs that unions incur when workers organize and affiliate as unions, negotiate at the bargaining table, enforce contracts through grievance and arbitration, and sometimes use their most formidable tool, the work stoppage.
If the plaintiffs prevail – they’re a handful of teachers who claim they oppose union efforts to increase pay and protect job security because it violates their free-speech rights – it could destroy public-employee unions in dozens of states where laws provide for “agency fees,” or “fair-share fees.” Those laws mandate that workers covered by union contracts need not be members and pay dues, but they must contribute to the portion of union revenues that cover non-political expenses like negotiations.
Once a union is the recognized bargaining agent, not so incidentally, they are required by federal law to fairly represent all workers in that bargaining unit.
Besides decimating unions’ ability to fund activities helping workers, a win for the plaintiffs is seen by some observers as a back-door way to impose a Right-To-Work environment where legislatures haven’t passed such a measure.
The case was essentially encouraged by U. S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who last year wrote the majority opinion in “Harris v. Quinn,” a case where the court ruled against the union Vital labor case gets more time from Supreme Court - News - Canton Daily Ledger - Canton, IL - Canton, IL:
