Teachers should pay fair share for representation
Oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in the Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association case took place on Jan. 11, with hundreds of educators, firefighters, social workers and nurses gathering on the steps of the highest court in the nation to show support for the legal team presenting oral arguments in the case.
Both the plaintiffs and respondents had some direct questions to answer and the attorneys representing my colleagues and me made an effective case as to why the 1977 Abood v. Detroit Board of Education decision should not be overturned.
The plaintiffs’ claims that this decision violates workers’ First Amendment rights is completely false. Let's be clear: No one can be forced to join a union. But unions are legally required to serve everyone in a unionized workplace.
Under a precedent established by the Supreme Court in Abood nearly 40 years ago, almost half of the states have chosen to support stable and effective collective bargaining by allowing nonmembers to be charged for the costs of their union representation in collective bargaining and workplace contract administration.
When it rendered its 1977 opinion, the court determined that unions were burdened with who they called “free riders” or those receiving benefits without having to pay for them. The court decided that fees requiring non-members to pay their “fair share” of the costs of that work was an appropriate compromise. And, specifically based on the language in Abood, they need pay only the cost of services related to the union’s representational work.
Think about it this way: Each individual teacher can choose whether to join the union, but the union is required by law to negotiate on behalf of all the teachers at the school and all of the teachers enjoy the benefits, job security and other protections that the union negotiates.
Teachers who don't want to belong to a union only have to contribute to the costs of the representation they receive. It’s only fair that every teacher contribute to the cost of negotiating those benefits and protections. Those are the only fees we’re talking about in this case. No teacher is required to join a union and no teacher is required to pay any fees that go to politics or political candidates.
Abood now has nearly 40 years of law built upon it, not to mention the tens of thousands of contracts binding millions of employees to the institutions they serve. A decision to overturn Abood would create utter chaos for all public employees and the employers with collective bargaining agreements.
The damage from potentially eliminating fair-share fees isn’t limited to students and schools. Any decision in Friedrichs will apply not just to teachers, but to all government employees, including firefighters, nurses and social workers. Essentially, taking away fair-share fees would have broad consequences affecting all public service workers, their communities and the middle class at large.
Corporate CEOs and wealthy special interests are trying to make it even harder for working people like me It’s only fair that every teacher contribute to the cost of negotiating benefits and protections | SanDiegoUnionTribune.com:
