Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
SCOTUS to hear major dispute over union fees
 | |
| Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association | |
| Docket number: 14-915 | |
| Court: United States Supreme Court | |
| Court membership | |
| Chief Justice John G. Roberts Associate Justices Antonin Scalia Anthony Kennedy • Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Steven G. Breyer Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan | |
January 8, 2015
By Kelly Coyle
On Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral argument in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, a case that will address the constitutionality of requiring public employees to pay "agency shop" fees to public-sector unions. A group of California teachers, who are nonunion members, petitioned the court to rule on whether being required to pay a fee to a union is a violation of their First Amendment rights.
Charlotte Garden, an associate professor at Seattle University's law school and a labor-law expert, said, "the case is a big deal. It's not heralding the end of public-sector unionism the way some people have suggested. But it is going to matter a lot in terms of upsetting settled labor contracts."[1]
Labor unions are required to represent all public employees, whether an employee is a member of the union or not. In Abood v. Detroit Education Association, the Supreme Court ruled that it was not a violation of an employee's First Amendment rights to be required to pay an "agency shop" fee. According to the United States Department of Labor, an "agency shop" is "A union security clause whereby all members of a bargaining unit must pay a service fee, the equivalent of dues, whether or not they are union members."[2] The dues compensate a labor union for any collective bargaining, contract administration or grievance adjustment purposes done on behalf of the employees.[3]
Teachers in California who opt out of the union are not required to pay the union for engaging in political activity, but they are required to pay a fee for collective bargaining done on their behalf. The teachers petitioning the court argue that collective bargaining is a form of political speech because the union can engage in negotiations about the following issues: "'[t]erms and conditions of employment' that go to the heart of education policy, including 'wages,' 'hours,' 'health and welfare benefits,' 'leave,' 'transfer and reassignment policies,' 'class size,' and procedures for evaluating employees and processing grievances." Discussing collective bargaining, the brief states, "In this era of broken municipal budgets and a national crisis in public education, it is difficult to imagine more politically charged issues than how much money local governments should devote to public employees, or what policies public schools should adopt to best educate children."[4]
 |
| Education policy in the U.S. |
| Public education in the U.S. |
| School choice in the U.S. |
| Charter schools in the U.S. |
| Higher education in the U.S. |
| Glossary of education terms |
| Education statistics |
|
The court will also consider whether it violates the First Amendment rights of the teachers to have to opt out of paying the union for the political activities that they engage in annually, rather than opting in.[4]
According to SCOTUSblog's Lyle Denniston, "It has been clear, since the Court’s ruling exactly one year ago in Harris v. Quinn, that a majority of the Court would welcome a plea to undo the first precedent extending 'agency shop' rules to the public sector — Abood v. Detroit Education Association. That four-decade-old precedent was roundly criticized in the lead opinion in Harris, but the opinion stopped short of saying that the ruling should be overturned."[5]
If the court rules in favor of the teachers and overturns the Abood v. Detroit Education Association ruling, it will be a major blow to labor unions and a win for the growing right-to-work movement, which is likely to be an important issue during the 2016 presidential and congressional elections.[5]
Questions presented:
|
See also
- Supreme Court of the United States
- History of the Supreme Court
- Major cases of the Supreme Court October 2015 term
- Supreme Court cases, October term 2015
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ Education Week, "High Stakes in Union-Fee Case Before Supreme Court," accessed January 7, 2016
- ↑ U.S. Department of Labor, "Glossary," accessed January 7, 2016
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 SupremeCourt.gov, "Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association," accessed September 7, 2015
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Americanbar.org, "Brief for Petitioners Rebecca Friedrichs, et al.," accessed September 22, 2015
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 ScotusBlog, "New threat to public employee unionism," accessed September 8, 2015
