Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.
Union Station: January 29, 2021
January 29, 2021
 Welcome to Union StationJanuary 29, 2021Welcome to Union Station, our weekly newsletter that keeps you abreast of the legislation, national trends, and public debate surrounding public-sector union policy. 
Ohio teacher appeals Sixth Circuit decision upholding exclusive representation lawOn Jan. 22, Jade Thompson, an Ohio Spanish teacher challenging her state’s laws allowing exclusive representative collective bargaining, appealed her case to the United States Supreme Court. Parties to the suitThompson is the plaintiff. Attorneys from the Buckeye Institute and Baker and Hostetler, LLP, represent her. The Buckeye Institute describes itself as "an independent research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to advance free-market public policy in the states." What's at issue, and how the lower courts ruledThompson filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, alleging that Ohio's exclusive representation law violated her First Amendment rights. Ohio law allows a union to become the exclusive bargaining agent for all public-sector employees within a bargaining unit if the union can prove that a majority of the unit's members want its representation. If a union has been certified as a unit's exclusive bargaining agent, the public employer must bargain with that union and no one else. This prohibition extends both to individuals and other labor organizations. Thompson alleged this system violated the First Amendment, even if public employees do not have to join or financially support the majority-chosen union representative. The MEA argued that neither Thompson’s “employer nor reasonable outsiders would believe that all bargaining unit workers necessarily agree with the MEA’s positions.” Appeal to the Supreme CourtBuckeye Institute lead attorney Robert Alt said: “For far too long, Jade Thompson has been forced to speak through and associate with a union of which she is not even a member in violation of her First Amendment rights. … The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found that old case law required it to rule against Ms. Thompson, while nonetheless concluding that Ohio’s ‘take-it-or-leave-it system’ of exclusive representation directly conflicts with the principles announced in the 2018 Janus v. AFSCME decision—a discrepancy that can be resolved only by the U.S. Supreme Court.” Subjecting public workers to state-compelled union representation contravenes established First Amendment doctrine. As Janus explained, these regimes constitute “a significant impingement on associational freedoms that would not be tolerated in other contexts.” … When state law appoints a union to represent unwilling public workers, it compels their speech. The State of Ohio has imposed upon Ms. Thompson a government-appointed lobbyist who works on her behalf and in her name, as her “agent” and “representative,” even though she disagrees with the positions it attributes to her. Thompson’s lawyers ask the Supreme Court to decide “[w]hether it violates the First Amendment to designate a labor union to represent and speak for public sector employees who object to its advocacy on their behalf” and whether Minnesota State Board for Community Colleges v. Knight, the precedent cited by the Sixth Circuit in ruling against Thompson, should be overruled. What comes nextThe MEA and the Marietta City School District Board of Education have until March 1 to file a brief in response. On average, the court acts on an appeal within about six weeks of its filing.  What we're reading
The Big PictureNumber of relevant bills by stateWe are currently tracking 47 pieces of legislation dealing with public-sector employee union policy. On the map below, a darker shade of green indicates a greater number of relevant bills. Click here for a complete list of all the bills we're tracking. Number of relevant bills by current legislative statusNumber of relevant bills by partisan status of sponsor(s)Recent Legislative ActionsBelow is a complete list of relevant legislative actions taken since our last issue.
|
See also
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
