The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to a hear a case on whether California teachers can be forced to pay union fees, a major challenge to organized labor that could potentially extend right-to-work protections to all public-sector employees.
If the plaintiffs win, public employees would no longer be forced back unions, a change that would be a severe financial blow to organized labor, which relies heavily on the mandated payments.
The case, called Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, hinges on whether unions can impose so-called “agency fees” on public school educators that they represent regardless of whether the individual teacher opts to join the union. The plaintiffs argue the fees trample their First Amendment rights since they obligate nonmembers to support political activity by the union that they disagree with.
Such fees, meant to cover the union’s collective bargaining expenses, have been allowed under a 1977 Supreme Court case called Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. The Friedrichs case, which had previously been before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, directly challenges the constitutionality of that ruling. The court under Chief Justice John Roberts has limited union powers to coerce dues from unwilling members, most notably in 2014’s Harris v. Quinn decision.
Terrence Pell, president of the libertarian nonprofit Center for Individual Rights, which is representing the teachers in this case, said he believed the ruling could extend beyond public-sector employees.
“This case is about the right of individuals to decide for themselves whether to join and pay dues to an organization that purports to speak on their behalf. We are seeking the end of compulsory union dues across the nation on the basis of the free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. [Plaintiff] Rebecca Friedrichs and the other California teachers we are representing are looking forward to their long overdue day in court,” Pell said.
The justices will hear the appeal during their fall term. A decision will be due by June 30, 2016.
A coalition of unions that represent teachers and other public-sector workers issued a statement that they were “disappointed” that the court had agreed to hear the case.
“The Supreme Court is revisiting decisions that have made it possible for people to stick together for a voice at work and in their communities — decisions that have stood for more than 35 years — and that have allowed people to work together for better public services and vibrant communities,” the statement said. Signers included National Education Association President Lily Garcia, California Teachers Association President Eric Heins, American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees President Lee Saunders and Service Employees International Union President Mary Kay Henry.
The statement notably did not address the constitutional issue in the case. However, California Teachers Association spokesman Frank Wells told the Washington Examiner that the plaintiffs’ argument was “weak.”
“The cornerstone of their case is without merit. Currently, agency fee payers have the right to request a rebate on anything that is not based on political activities,” he said. “We find the argument that the plaintiffs are making that everything a union does is political is specious.”
Pell rejected the unions’ argument, noting that his plaintiffs had to the take the union’s word for it on what it claimed was its political spending. “Teachers are on the hook regardless of whether they opt out of the political portion of the dues. In our view, the agency fee is just as political as the overtly political part of the dues because the agency fee supports the contract negotiation. A public employee union negotiation is inherently political because it concerns, at a fundamental level, the allocation of public resources to education as opposed to other things it could be spent on, like, say, parks,” he said.
This was particularly significant now he added, noting that in some cities and states elected officials are struggling to address budget shortfalls, with public-sector union pensions a particular problem in places such as California.
Union leaders in the Golden State have been warily watching the Friedrichs case. The cases was one of several the California Teachers Association pointed to last year in a PowerPoint presentation it created for its members warning that California could become a “right-to-work” state where agency fees are prohibited altogether.
The presentation said that should the union lose the power it has under its contract with the state to force teachers to pay agency fees to the union, it would have to find new ways to boost membership.
“Plans are underway in each region for convening workgroups of leaders, members and staff to address long-term approaches to the loss of Fair Share,” the presentation said. Local unions will be engaged in an “ongoing education process” with members to answer the question: “What is it like to work in an environment where members must be signed up each year?”
“I really do believe it is a question of not if, but when,” union Executive Director Joe Nunez said in a speech last year regarding right to work.
The 325,000-member union has 29,000 members who pay agency fees right now — about one of every 11 members. That’s under a system that actively discourages teachers from becoming fee payers in the first place. That suggests the union could lose a lot of members if it could no longer demand their support.
