Discussion Forum

The U.S. Supreme Court Is Taking Up A Case That Could Gut Public Sector Unions in the US.

Wednesday, January 13, 2016

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Monday in a case over the question of whether public

sector employees should be required to pay union fees, even if they are non-members. The court's

decision could undercut the power and long-term survival of public sector unions in more than two

dozen states, including California.

The case, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, was initiated by 10 non-union California public

school teachers and the Christian Educators Association International against the California Teachers

Association, a powerful union with 325,000 members. The plaintiff/teachers argue that they should not

be required to pay fees to a union if they choose to not be a part of it, even though they are still

represented by the union.

A ruling in favor of the California teachers would apply in the 25 US states (including California) that do

not already have what is known as "right-to-work" laws. "Right-to-work" laws prohibit workers in a

unionized industry from being forced to pay fees to that union, unless they choose to join the union.

Such a ruling would be a blow to organized labor in California, because payments from non-union

members that go toward collective bargaining - known as "agency fees" - are a substantial source of

funding for unions.

The plaintiff/teachers argue that California's current law violates non-union workers' First Amendment

free-speech rights by requiring them to pay fees that support a political cause. The teachers are asking

the Supreme Court justices to overturn the 1977 Supreme Court ruling in Abood v. Detroit Board of

Education. Abood allows public-sector unions to collect fees from all employees, regardless of whether

those employees choose to be members of the union, as long as the money is not spent on political

activities.

The unions argue that non-union members should be required to pay "agency fees" in order to avoid the

"free-ride" problem of giving workers the benefits of the union without having to pay for them. The

unions further argue (1) collective bargaining is not political activity; and (2) state law requires the union

to represent all workers, regardless of whether they choose to be members or not.

A ruling in the case is due by the end of June.