What the Case Against Union Dues Is Really About: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association

[Triana]

By Alan Shapiro

On January 11, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case that greatly concerns all union members working in the public sector, including teachers and other state and municipal workers. The case, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, aims to overturn a Supreme Court ruling that has stood for nearly 40 years. In the important and unanimous 1977 decision Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the Supreme Court upheld the right of public sector unions to collect “fair share” or “agency” fees from workers who choose not to join the union, because those workers benefit significantly from union representation.

The current lawsuit is viewed by many as an attack on unions, which it clearly is. As Jean Ross, co-president of the union National Nurses United, wrote:

“The intended effect is to essentially bankrupt public sector unions….The architects of this move are the management-linked groups, funded by some of the wealthiest corporate interests in the U.S., whose goal is to eliminate the ability of workers to have a voice in the workplace or limit the ability of corporations to put profits ahead of worker rights, workplace rights.”

Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (CTA) was filed in behalf of just ten teachers in California by the Center for Individual Rights (CIR), a right-wing law firm. Rebecca Friedrichs, the lead plaintiff in the case, said in the court declaration: “I object to many of the union’s public-policy positions, including positions that they have taken…in collective-bargaining.” And Terry Pell, president of the CIR, said that the case “is about the right of individuals to decide for themselves whether to join and pay dues….We are seeking the end of compulsory union dues….”

These arguments are simply untrue and misleading. First of all, these teachers already have the right not to join the union or pay union dues. However, in keeping with the Abood decision, those who don’t join are still required to pay “fair-share” fees for the benefits they receive through the union. It should be noted that under current law teachers who opt out of union membership are not required to fund any political activity. It’s important also to acknowledge that one of the “positions” unions have taken in collective bargaining is that every worker deserves fair compensation. A person’s not liking certain “positions” taken by the U.S. government does not annul that person’s obligation to pay their fair share of income taxes.

THE REST:

http://unionsmatter.com/2016/01/05/what-the-case-against-union-dues-is-really-about-friedrichs-v-california-teachers-association/

[Princess Turandot]

1. SCOTUSblog has a decent 'In Plain English' article on the case...

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/01/justices-return-to-dispute-over-union-fees-for-non-members-in-plain-english/

[Nye Bevan]

2. Here's what I don't understand about this.

Why not allow people to not join the union, and not pay any dues at all, but then have such people not benefit in any way from the union's negotiations? So if the union negotiates a pay raise, only the union members would receive the raise, and everyone who chooses not to join is on their own? I imagine that membership of the union would soar if this was how it worked.

[BlueCollar]

3. because

The law requires that a Union represent all workers under the same classification.

It is called the duty of fair representation.

[Nye Bevan]

4. It seems to me that this law is responsible for the "free rider" problem.

If not for this law, pretty much everyone would join the union.