Mandatory Union Fees Cast in Doubt at U.S. Supreme Court
Source: Bloomberg
By Greg Stohr
January 11, 2016 11:34 AM EST
The U.S. Supreme Courts conservative wing cast doubt on the constitutionality of requirements in more than 20 states that public-sector workers pay fees to the union that represents them.
Hearing arguments Monday in Washington, pivotal justices voiced support for California teachers who contend their First Amendments rights are being violated. The case could affect as 5 million public-sector workers.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, often the courts decisive vote, said that many teachers strongly disagree with their union on issues of public concern, including merit pay and classroom size.
Five of the nine justices hinted in a 2014 case that they were poised to let government workers refuse to pay collective-bargaining fees. That step would be a blow to public-sector unions, which now account for almost half the countrys unionized workers.
Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-01-11/mandatory-union-fees-cast-in-doubt-by-u-s-supreme-court
Supreme Court Seems Poised to Deal Unions a Major Setback
WASHINGTON The Supreme Court seemed poised on Monday to deliver a severe blow to organized labor.
The justices appeared divided along familiar lines during an extended argument over whether government workers who choose not to join unions may nonetheless be required to help pay for collective bargaining. The courts conservative majority appeared ready to say that such compelled financial support violates the First Amendment
Collective bargaining, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said, is inherently political when the government is the employer, and issues like merit pay, promotions and classroom size are subject to negotiation.
The best hope for a victory for the unions had rested with Justice Antonin Scalia, who has written and said things sympathetic to their position. But he was consistently hostile on Monday.
The problem is that everything that is bargained for with the government is within the political sphere, he said.
more...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/us/politics/at-supreme-court-public-unions-face-possible-major-setback.html?_r=0
elljay
(1,178 posts)Those teachers who "strongly disagree" with being in a union will likely soon have their wishes. They will save perhaps dozens of dollars in union dues and will lose tens of thousands in the wages, benefits, and improved working conditions that the union would have negotiated on their behalf. Talk about cutting of your nose to spite your face.
iandhr
(6,852 posts)forest444
(5,902 posts)Read: Orange County bigots and church ladies who brought this up after being coached and financed by right-wing SuperPACs.
I knew a few of them. The coaching must have taken forever.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,308 posts)Apparently, their claim is, arguing for better pay and smaller classrooms is a "political argument" and should be considered part of the exemption they already have from political contributions.
Unfuckingbelievable.
Wouldn't you just love to meet these assholes? I bet they are loved by their fellow teachers. I'll take a guess and assume the plaintiffs are late in their careers and figure any damage they do won't affect them.
Really. Their argument is municipalities are strapped for cash so any request for raises is something with which they disagree.
I understand rules are a different when the employer is the "government" but pay and class size etc. are employee/employer issues - not political. That takes some really slimy Heritage Foundation/ALEC type twisting to argue with a straight face.
forest444
(5,902 posts)And besides figuring that any damage they do won't affect them, some of them are probably holding out for some six-figure plum job at some Irvine "think tank."
cstanleytech
(26,213 posts)I suspect though what will happen is SCOTUS will rule that its not constitutional to force people who decide not to join a union to pay into it and sadly I have to agree that its probably not
That doesnt mean they should be allowed to enjoy the benefits, the unions could negotiate their contracts so that none union members pay and benefits have to be say 50% less than the union members benefits.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)Whether they are members or not. I think that is the law. No closed shop in government jobs.
I'm no expert, though, so I could be wrong. So the free rider problem is huge.
If they rule against the fees, the Supreme Court will actually be overturning an earlier decision, which says it is constitutional to require non-members to pay the fee to support collective bargaining. It was a compromise to deal with free riders. With this SCOTUS, though, you can never be sure how they will act.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,308 posts)... nuts and bolts employee issues.
There already is an established line when it comes to the public employee versus the public employers regarging free speech.
Public employees already have expanded free speech rights when it comes to their public employer(versus private) But they do not have ultimate free speechrights when it comes to criticizing their employer.
There is a thin line that this suit attempts to eliminate
angrychair
(8,677 posts)Unions are required, by law, to represent you if you pay or not. If these people succeed and can choose not to pay their unions dues, I suspect many will stop paying and public employee unions will become ineffective as funding dwindles and paid membership falls until it dies.
It is not political speech. I am a public employee shop steward and I never engage in political speech as a shop steward.
Protecting your rights and fighting to have everyone treated fairly is not political speech.
Wanting fair pay is not political speech.
Wanting to ensure that your supervisor and senior management treat everyone equally and follow the rules is not political speech.
Wanting time off to enjoy time with your family or recover from an illness is not political speech.
The amount of waste, fraud and abuse public employee unions prevent is no small matter. An example being that by ensuring that contractor rules are followed by ensuring that state employees are being used whenever possible, it keeps from happening or shines a light on cronyism and nepotism.
City, county, state and federal employees are not the enemy. We are taxpayers too. We work and live in the very city, county or state of the people we serve.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)Lobbying and endorsing for the benefit of their organization. Is that not so?
I can understand why a member with political views, differing from the union line, wouldn't want to be forced to pay dues that would bring about political change he disagrees with.
Not in context you mean. Public employee unions have two sides, one that represents members and another that advocates for pro-labor bills in state legislatures and pro -labor candidates (no matter party affiliation though most are Democrats), with different offices, staff and funding.
For example, where I live in Washington state, the AFSCME political arm is called PEOPLE. By state law union dues do not go to PEOPLE. As far as I know all city, county and state employee unions in the country are the same in that regard.
I cannot speak to federal or private sector unions but I would suspect it's the same.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)Where does the legislative lobbying portion draw its funds from?
angrychair
(8,677 posts)Employees can sign a card to choose to have funds go to PEOPLE. I have money come out of my check every pay period.
angrychair
(8,677 posts)"I can understand why a member with political views, differing from the union line, wouldn't want to be forced to pay dues that would bring about political change he disagrees with."
The political arm of a union does not use a mandatory fee model.
The focus of this case is that public employee contract negotiations are inherently a political process. Union representation has a mandatory fee model.
Yes, unions are bargining for the best and fairest contract for its members.
Yes, this will obligate public funds.
Yes, it impacts the cost of government.
No more political than any other process in government.
cstanleytech
(26,213 posts)payer money, it just is what it is.
I dont like that they are probably going to side with the non union people though because that will hurt alot of people.
angrychair
(8,677 posts)How is negotiating a contract "political speech"? The union (actually union members themselves) negotiates for the benefit of its members while balancing the fiscal realities of state funding.
cstanleytech
(26,213 posts)the government for things for the workers like better pay and vacation time as well heath benefits and that is really political speech.
angrychair
(8,677 posts)In every case with a union, contract negotiations are done by committees staffed with union members who are state employees.
These are negotiations, not lobbying.
A union is not a bunch of nimbus "other". It is an "us". Like any other union, we, as employees, bargin for our own contract.
cstanleytech
(26,213 posts)coerced into paying into a union if they are not a member of regardless of any claims that the union makes.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)and educational spending priorities with taxpayer dollars are most definitely a political issue.
Arguments that rely on how unpopular these complaining teacher are or their political leanings support, rather than mitigate, their First Amendment arguments in the case before SCOTUS.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,308 posts)... by having someone ask for a raise on their behalf.
The government is also an employer. Their has to be a line the union can stay behind. Where does it end? Can the union ask for a coffee maker in the break room? Or is that a public policy argument as well?
This has already been settled law anyway. What happened to stare decisis? Oh yeah, Alito and Roberts were lying through their teeth. I won't even bother with the other two pieces of shit.
branford
(4,462 posts)and it's usually liberals who are the advocates of a "living Constitution." That's how we eliminated anti-sodomy laws and now have a right to same-sex marriage and abortion. Nevertheless, constitutional evolution certainly does not always move to the left.
Public employee unions have always been very controversial. Even FDR had serious concerns and generally didn't support public sector unions due to inherent conflicts of interest and political concerns.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2013/aug/13/scott-walker/Did-FDR-oppose-collective-bargaining-for-governmen/
Public employee unions are undoubtedly inherently political in ways far different than any unions in the private sector. Prior precedent allowed agency fees to maintain worker harmony and some solidarity, and these rationales were really not exactly the best or most well-thought out or written decisions to defend against the leanings of a later more conservative court or even against a moderate or liberal court who balanced First Amendment rights as paramount.
turbinetree
(24,683 posts)"Justice Anthony Kennedy, often the courts decisive vote, said that many teachers strongly disagree with their union on issues of public concern, including merit pay and classroom size."
Now that you have broadcast your "opinion" of this issue, before listening to what a democratically elected 50+1 majority of represented elected work force really wants, why don't you resign.
There are no words to describe the outrage of what you have said about this issue , why did your right wing chief justice put Alito in charge of this future opinion to write the opinion on this case ---------------it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out look at what he said about :"Citizens United", you can place charter schools as a corporate enitity
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread900328/pg1
And just for giggles who was Rehnquist law Clerk:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/06/29/why-ted-cruz-watched-pornography-with-supreme-court-justices/
Honk-------------------for a political revolution it is about getting a progressive U.S. Supreme Court, Congress and Legislatures
Bernie 2016
Omaha Steve
(99,485 posts)cstanleytech
(26,213 posts)Android3.14
(5,402 posts)I like unions and I dislike unions. I've been a member of various unions over the years, and pragmatically recognize that unions have both positive and negative outcomes.
I also support unions and candidates who also support unions, such as Bernie Sanders.
Regardless, no organization should be able to force a person to support their cause.
haele
(12,635 posts)you shouldn't have to pay for that protection if you disagree with the other politics. Which basically makes the person who doesn't want to pay union fees the ultimate welfare queen. Despite the individual horror stories of corrupt unions, unions have protected and enriched far more workers and done more to promote a wide-ranging middle class than any other organizational system around.
Business owners want to cut costs. Governments want to take in tax revenue to pay for programs and the bureaucracy inherent in effective governance. Unions, for the most part, are the only ones that actually focus on the needs working people, especially the ability to acquire benefits that the government won't normally provide, redress from unfair actions of the employer and/or any injuries that occurred on the job, the ability to remain employed and especially to retire with a modicum of dignity.
Some people may not think they "need a union" because they're on such good terms with their employer and maybe, they feel can talk their way into positions, raises and job security at their own terms. However, that's not true for the most part and for most people. And like it or no, the collective bargaining power of unions have had a major input into the job safety requirements and wage and benefits packages that the DoL requires US businesses to have to operate.
The business of "Rolling back the power of unions" is to take employment and business practices back to the 1830's, when anyone who worked was pretty much at the mercy of their employer's whims.
Haele
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)In a perfect world, a non-union member would not receive any benefit from union actions
But the core question is whether a private organization (such as a union, civic club, PTA, neighborhood watch, etc.) should be able to force a person to pay for the organization against that person's will.
Regardless of the sense we may have that the non-paying people are freeloading off of the work of the organization, it is a straightforward and easily defensible argument to show the union practice of forcing people to pay is a violation of at least two constitutional precepts, freedom of speech and freedom to assemble.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)and I agree with you that involuntary union membership is a violation.
All a union has to do to avoid providing services to non-paying members is to define that valid union members are those who pay dues.
Forcing someone to join a union is as wrong as preventing people from being in a union.
If a union is good, people will want to join.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)There are some states, however, that force a union to represent non union workers. For those states, the unions should be pushing legilsation that protects them or arguing their court case to represent only their own members.
haele
(12,635 posts)Is it a violation of the constitutional rights of citizens to be forced to pay Federal taxes if they and their state don't agree with federal policies that impose on their freedom of speech and assembly?
Is it a violation to force people to pay for health insurance, or pay a fee, if they don't want to participate in the ACA? The Hobby Lobby ruling actually suggests that perhaps it could be considered a violation to force employers to comply with the ACA and provide health coverage for certain conditions that "impose" on their free speech and assembly.
I see the issue more as questioning equal protection under the laws and contracts.
If one is working under a union contract and doesn't agree with the union, one don't have much to say about it, just as one doesn't have the right to dictate an employer to re-negotiate a contract because one doesn't like the way business is being done or decides "I want a raise, so give me one". The options have always been to follow the terms of the contract, quit, or be fired for cause.
So long as existing contracts and terms the employer has made with the other employees or organizations are not being broken, the employee always has the right to tell the employer "I will refuse the union contract and its terms and protections. I will negotiate my own contract with you directly and work as a contractor". Otherwise, personal viewpoint aside, there's the issue of conflicting rights and where is the most harm. If enough people want to get rid of the union, they can always vote to disband the union.
Living as a remora off a union does more harm to all the employees in general, by impacting their rights of speech and assembly, than it does to the individual or individuals who think that because they're not politically inclined towards the union's goals, they can bully and hold the union hostage until it caves to their demands by withholding their dues.
Just get enough employee votes to disband the union and then everyone can figure out how to negotiate with the organization that employs one directly and individually, just like they do in non-union shops.
Haele
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)While I also believe the government should be unable to compel me to pay for certain things, there is court precedent showing the US government can compel people to pay for policies with which they disagree.
Unions, however, are not governments. They are private organizations.
I empathize with the frustration union advocates feel, I just disagree on principle with the practice of compelling nonmembers to pay for services and political advocacy with which those nonmembers disagree.
Barring a more compelling argument, my sense is that the unions will be unsuccessful with the Supreme Court in this situation.
MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)The LA Times had a picture of a woman holding a sign that read: Agency Fees = Stronger Unions = Stronger Middle Class.
Compelling if you have common sense? Yes. Compelling if you're deciding on the legality of agency fees? Not at all.
While disallowing agency fees (and thus allowing total free riders) would certainly be a blow to unions, wanting to prevent damage to unions is not a sound legal argument, and I don't understand why so many are acting like it is.
It is not a compelling legal argument to say "the main reason not to do this is that I won't like the outcome," especially when the other side's argument (right or wrong) is that the practice violates their constitutional rights.
E-Z-B
(567 posts)Why is that law in place that non-members get the contract benefits and not have to negotiate by themselves?
Another law needed- if I'm a shareholder, and I disagree on political contributions by that company, why are those donations allowed?
branford
(4,462 posts)Unions have always wanted to be the exclusive bargaining agent of employees. They didn't want competition. If stronger, smarter, more industrious, or simply better connected employees could negotiate individual deals with an employer, particularly if it's a government, many union members would want to leave believing that the union wasn't effective. A single union negotiating a single contract, even for non-union members, is almost always better for the unions. The unions want to represent these non-members (and couldn't legally negotiate a contract that required non-members be treated worse than members for a number of reasons).
Your corporate shareholder analogy is also not really on point. The shares of public companies are fungible. If you do not like the politics of a company, you may sell your shares. Here, a government employee would need to quit their job to protest union political or economic positions. Far different laws and public policies are it issue.
The argument in this case is that public union negotiations are inherently political due to numerous factors. Counter-arguments that outlawing agency fees will badly hurt unions is political, and not really very legally persuasive in contrast to the First Amendment rights of other government employees who do not wish to join or support the union. The prior Supreme Court precedent was always very legally tenuous, and effectively relied upon a sense of labor peace and solidarity from a very pro-labor earlier court to justify agency fees for government workers. With even stronger free speech jurisprudence and a more conservative court in recent decades, the plaintiffs choose wisely in bringing their challenge now.
MichMan
(11,863 posts)Unions insist on exclusivity clauses in contracts to also keep other unions out. The last thing a union wants after becoming the bargaining representative for workers is to have to compete with a rival union siphoning off their members.
Imagine a situation where one union represents the workers and another union wants a piece of the pie and states that they will charge less union dues and obtain the same or better pay/benefits. In order to stop that and also employees negotiating their own deals, unions insist on exclusivity clauses.
That is what causes them to have to represent everybody whether they are members or not. I hear a lot of comments that non member freeloaders should have to negotiate for themselves, but the fact is they are not allowed to even if they so desire.
branford
(4,462 posts)Yupster
(14,308 posts)What if a boss negotiates each individual contract $ 1 an hour more than what he negotiates with the union? The boss could quickly destroy the union, and they would.
The word would get around. Non union members make more than union members and also don't have to pay dues.
electricray
(432 posts)I've seen a couple arguments in this thread about it not being ok for a Union to force a person to pay for something they don't believe in claiming that this is a free speech issue. I can't believe I have to point this out on this forum, but MONEY IS NOT SPEECH!
I am a Union organizer. When my brothers and sisters have a problem with the way things are run, they have a voice and a process that they can participate in. If they have enough support from everyone else, they can pass resolutions, create bylaws, run for election, etc. If they don't want to participate, we don't make them, but unions with low member participation are more expensive to operate.
If they don't want to join the Union, we don't make them, but Federal law makes us represent them the same regardless of membership. Often, fee payers are more expensive to represent than full share members because they are more often dissatisfied with every other person in the world and they expect the Union to solve all their problems, somewhat akin to the tea-bagger who rails against the government from their wheelchair that was paid for by Medicare but justifies their heavy use of the system because "I pay my taxes!"
If I order a $5 burger at a restaurant with a $1 menu, walking out without paying simply because I don't believe in subsidizing the $1 menu would not be exercising free speech, it would be stealing.
I'll say it again: MONEY IS NOT SPEECH!
branford
(4,462 posts)but numerous Supreme Court precedents (well beyond Citizens United) say differently. Unless and until there is a wholesale change in First Amendment jurisprudence, money is indeed speech, and we must deal with this reality.
I would also note that many of the government union non-members don't actually want the union to represent them. Unions have historically wanted and demanded they they represent everyone, negotiate a single contract for everyone, and simply not face any competition in the workplace.
Additionally, closed shops are already illegal, the majority of states with "right-to-work" laws already prohibit mandatory agency fees, and this case only involves government workers where union negotiations have a political component that's not as easily separated as it is in the private sector.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)This is so well established in jurisprudence that it is not worth debating.
I can't imagine a teacher not wanting to join a union - the teacher would have no union representation when something bad happened. Same for police, firefighters, etc.
There are many, many reasons to be in a union.
Dyedinthewoolliberal
(15,543 posts)if it (making people pay dues) was legal in the 30's (or whenever the law was passed) why is it not legal now?
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)As was segregation. And I'm not saying that this issue is comparable to those, simply noting that ideas about what should and should not be permitted change over time. Generically speaking, I think a lot of people are offended by the idea of being forced to pay for something they don't support.
Dyedinthewoolliberal
(15,543 posts)I'm a union member and I know my dues are not being used for political purposes. They (the union admins) ask for a separate donation to support that. My dues cover the cost of an organizer and steward training and so on. So the idea that dues are used to fund political activities is not correct, in my way of thinking........
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)Constitutional issues may be raised at any time. That's sort of the function of the Constitution of the United States.
The fact that a constitutional violation wasn't recognized as one at some point doesn't in law have much weight.
Dyedinthewoolliberal
(15,543 posts)am I understanding you correctly?
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)The specific claim is that forcing a person to pay public union dues amounts to forced political speech by the government, which would be a First Amendment violation.
How it will be decided I don't know. The judges seemed to show some concern over the issue. I am not an SC justice, and my opinion doesn't matter, nor have I even read through the case.
If I had had the opportunity to study the issues, I think my opinion would probably be that sometimes it is not and sometimes it is, but right now I don't have an opinion.
This case only involves public unions.
I do strongly hold the belief that a constitutional violation having not been found to be a violation in the past does not make the unconstitutional constitutional, which I would think would be uncontroversial. Perhaps on DU NOTHING is uncontroversial.
What I doubt is that very many public employees would not want to be part of a union.
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)Having said that, the public sector unions often undermine non public sector unions by supporting pro-freetrade centrists like Hillary. This will harm the only working class group that supports the centrists like Obama and the Clintons so this isn't bad for progressives.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Of non-public sector union support?
branford
(4,462 posts)In fact, this is precisely why a SCOTUS loss for government employee unions will be potentially so devastating to the entire union movement.
cstanleytech
(26,213 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)or read much about the oral argument.
However, the court, including some of its liberal members, have not recently been very positively disposed to many labor arguments concerning fees from non-members and similar issue, and unions have unfortunately really been pushing the legal envelope in order to raise badly needed funds to counter conservative anti-union messages and candidates.
Given decreasing public support for unions coupled with declining membership, as well as the potentially disastrous financial consequences to the entire labor movement if agency fees for government employees are struck down as a violation of the First Amendment, the Court's four liberals will more likely than not vote to uphold the policy, although likely including some dicta concerning restrictions on the use of the funds to differentiate the earlier, and not particularly impressive, precedents. However, that still leaves the Court's five conservative justices, and the two possible swing votes on this issue, Kennedy and Scalia, apparently were not particularly receptive to the union at oral argument. Hence, a 5-4 decision against government agency fees is probably the most likely outcome, but I'm still holding out some hope. If Roberts can disappoint Republicans and find the PPACA a tax, who knows what might happen.
cstanleytech
(26,213 posts)all government workers are taxed instead with a special tax that goes to the union or would that be illegal?
branford
(4,462 posts)First, you cannot negotiate a tax in a contract, it must be passed by Congress or the relevant state or local legislatures. This will not happen.
An actual tax on only government employees to support a union, a private organization, so it could then negotiate with the government and/or lobby it would be legally untenable for a host of reasons, including the First Amendment.
In any event, what you describe is basically what happens now. Union dues are deducted and collected from government employee paychecks and then turned over to the relevant unions. A negative decision before SCOTUS will end the practice.
As an aside, also note that ancillary attacks on unions have had great success against them. When the government payroll deduction is cut-off, as it was in Wisconsin by Scott Walker, union dues collection effort become untenable, and membership and political power are eviscerated.
cstanleytech
(26,213 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)Nothing about this ruling should affect the ability of public sector workers to unionize or collectively bargain, or likely will change an elected unions status as the exclusive collective bargaining agent.
If they lose, Government unions will simply have to exert a far better effort to explain to current and potential members about the value of the union and membership, rather than take dues and fees for granted.
Scruffy1
(3,252 posts)Unions such as the American Postal Workers, National Association of Letter Carriers and many many more are not allowed to charge even fair share or "agency fees" if an employee opts out. Despite this, they maintain over 90% membership. I think it's because if the union does it's job well the members will support it. And yes, they have to represent non members, too.
It seems to me that this is proof that open shop rules are not the "death of unions" that some would make it out to be. I've belonged to six unions in my lifetime, and there never was a problem with members supporting the union in any place I worked. I think if you have a lousy, corporate, top down run union the open shop would be a big problem. the Union bosses need to look in their own mirror. The same thing happened in Wisconsin and from what I saw there the union leadership had been asleep at the switch for years.