This Case Could Strike a "Mortal Blow" to Unions

[Peter1469]

Mother Jones discusses a case (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/01/friedrichs-california-teachers-union-supreme-court)heading to the Supreme Court that could end unions as we know it. Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association could dramatically weaken labor's clout.
At issue is whether non-union employees can be forced to pay union dues if their jobs are covered by a collective bargaining agreement.


On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear a case that has been likened to Citizens United for its potentially far-reaching ramifications. Instead of eviscerating long-standing campaign finance laws, though, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/friedrichs-v-california-teachers-association/?wpmp_switcher=desktop) threatens to strike a devastating blow to the nation's labor movement. Spearheaded by a conservative legal group, the case was designed to weaken public employee unions by challenging a nearly 40-year-old decision that allows them to collect compulsory fees from all employees covered by collective bargaining agreements, even if those employees aren't dues-paying union members.

The fees for nonunion members at issue in this case, known as "agency fees," can amount to about $600 a year or more—roughly 2 percent of a new California teacher's salary. There are about 325,000 members (https://www.cta.org/en/About-CTA/Who-We-Are/Teachers.aspx) of the California Teachers Association, which is the exclusive contract bargaining agent for teachers in California. Teachers in the state don't have to join the union, and there are about 29,000 such (http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/dan-morain/article27545431.html) employees in California who are not CTA members and don't pay dues, including the plaintiffs in Friedrichs. Even though they're not members, they still must pay the agency fees that cover the cost of the collective bargaining and representation that the union does on their behalf. These compulsory fees for nonmembers, which may not be used for political advocacy, are designed to prevent so-called free riders—employees who benefit from the union's representation but don't pay for it.



The plaintiffs in Friedrichs argue that forcing nonunion members to pay the fees is an unconstitutional violation of free speech and free association because, they allege, in public employee unions, salary and benefit negotiations are inherently political as they affect public policy on education as well as tax dollars. If the Supreme Court rules in their favor, it could deprive public employee unions across the country—groups representing everyone from police officers to postal workers to child abuse investigators—of hundreds of millions of dollars in funding and throw public employee contracts nationwide into potential chaos.

[Cletus]

Good.

[Cigar]

Good Old Conservative Core Value, inflict pain and discomfort.

[Peter1469]

Forcing people to pay union dues for unions that actively work against their beliefs and best interests?

[Matty]

Good Old Conservative Core Value, inflict pain and discomfort.


As opposed to liberal core value of theft?

[MisterVeritis]

Good Old Conservative Core Value, inflict pain and discomfort.
On union thugs?

Is plunder a core liberal value?

[Green Arrow]

Forcing people to pay union dues for unions that actively work against their beliefs and best interests?

Is it against their best interests, though?

Me personally, I think unions are archaic and labor should update its methods to match the times. There are much more effective ways to accomplish the things unions have accomplished throughout history in improving the working environments and livelihoods of workers.

[Peter1469]

Is it against their best interests, though?

Me personally, I think unions are archaic and labor should update its methods to match the times. There are much more effective ways to accomplish the things unions have accomplished throughout history in improving the working environments and livelihoods of workers.

One of the plaintiff organizations in the OP is a pro-life group. The union that they are suing gives money for abortions / abortion policy. It is against its members' best interests to pay for what they believe to be murder.

[MisterVeritis]

Is it against their best interests, though?

Me personally, I think unions are archaic and labor should update its methods to match the times. There are much more effective ways to accomplish the things unions have accomplished throughout history in improving the working environments and livelihoods of workers.
Who should decide what is in my best interest? Me or some union thug?

[Matty]

Right to work states got it right. Union thugs hate right to work states.

[Green Arrow]

One of the plaintiff organizations in the OP is a pro-life group. The union that they are suing gives money for abortions / abortion policy. It is against its members' best interests to pay for what they believe to be murder.

I meant specifically the intercessory action the union takes between the employee and their employer, but that would be an example of why I think unions are largely outdated and outlived their usefulness.

[ThaiBoxer]

Good.

Yeah great now we can return to the Guilded Age where the Vanderbilts have 99% of the money and the rest of us have table scraps. Always amazes me how right wingers will vote against their best interests.

[Peter1469]

Yeah great now we can return to the Guilded Age where the Vanderbilts have 99% of the money and the rest of us have table scraps. Always amazes me how right wingers will vote against their best interests.

Look up fractional reserve banking and learn something.

[HoneyBadger]

Yeah great now we can return to the Guilded Age where the Vanderbilts have 99% of the money and the rest of us have table scraps. Always amazes me how right wingers will vote against their best interests.

Maybe if you didn't sit on your ass waiting for someone to give you something as opposed to getting your ass out and hustling to earn it yourself, you'd have more than scraps.

[ThaiBoxer]

Maybe if you didn't sit on your ass waiting for someone to give you something as opposed to getting your ass out and hustling to earn it yourself, you'd have more than scraps.

I don't sit on my ass. I'm in my second year in college and in the top of my class. I'm also at the gym training five days a week.

[Subdermal]

Good Old Conservative Core Value, inflict pain and discomfort.

You need to defend this assertion.

How is it a defense of freedom to demand that someone who is not covered by a collective bargaining agreement be forced to pay dues to a group?

Conservative Core Value: don't support a "protection money" mafia scheme.

[Subdermal]

Yeah great now we can return to the Guilded Age where the Vanderbilts have 99% of the money and the rest of us have table scraps. Always amazes me how right wingers will vote against their best interests.

Someone else earning money doesn't inhibit your ability to do so. That's not how the economy works.

If it did, the creation of Facebook - making Mark Zuckerberg a billionaire - would have made countless people penniless.

[zelmo1234]

Yeah great now we can return to the Guilded Age where the Vanderbilts have 99% of the money and the rest of us have table scraps. Always amazes me how right wingers will vote against their best interests.

And the country was booming, and people had jobs, and were able to buy luxuries for the first time in their life.

Much better now that government dependency is GREAT!

[Green Arrow]

And the country was booming, and people had jobs, and were able to buy luxuries for the first time in their life.

Much better now that government dependency is GREAT!

That is not what the country looked like prior to the efforts of the labor movement in the 1890s and early 1900s.

[Green Arrow]

Yeah great now we can return to the Guilded Age where the Vanderbilts have 99% of the money and the rest of us have table scraps. Always amazes me how right wingers will vote against their best interests.

It's "Gilded Age," not "Guilded Age."

[zelmo1234]

That is not what the country looked like prior to the efforts of the labor movement in the 1890s and early 1900s.

The labor movement was certainly needed, and it really brought in safety issues and the 40 hour work week, which actually Ford was using and it was modeled after his Dearborn plant.

But even with the low wages, the massive hour being worked allowed for people to purchase their first Car, the model T or A, to purchase time saving appliances. While the Unions made this much better, under the robber barons the migrations from the farm to the city was underway, and that started the movement.

[Common]

Im sure this right wing scotus will vote against the unions. It wont be a death blow to public unions. Especially police and fire unions who provide legal services to those that need it and provide other services. Those choosing not to be in the union will be minimal.

The goal of the republicans has always been to get rid of unions that goes along with their voting against anything and everything for the working person. Dont think working people dont notice who is for them and against them.

Right to work is the right to allow your employer to pay you peanuts.

[maineman]

my grandfather was a lifelong democrat, but was also the manager of the LAST factory in the John Deere corporation to be non-union. They remained non-union because they believed that their boss was looking out for them, and he was.

When he was promoted to Vice President and moved to the head office, the company had him go back down to the plant the day before each union vote, and just walk around. They stayed non-union. When he retired, they would bring him out of retirement and have him walk around the plant each year the day before the union vote. And they stayed non-union. He actually took me with him on one of those occasions when I was about eight. He had been gone from that plant for at least six or seven years but he still knew nearly every worker's first name, and their wive's names... and he would remark about things he had seen their kids do in local sports or that they had been listed in the high school honor roll. It was incredible. That went on for ten years into his retirement when, one year, someone at the head office forgot to call him and ask him to show up. That year, that plant went union.

If all managers cared as much about their workers, and realized that labor was an asset and not a commodity, we wouldn't NEED unions. Until all managers are as enlightened as my grandfather, unions serve a purpose.

[MisterVeritis]

...Until all managers are as enlightened as my grandfather, unions serve a purpose.
Public sector unions exist for two reasons. The first is to launder money for Democrats. The second is to fleece the taxpayers.

[Cigar]

Public sector unions exist for two reasons. The first is to launder money for Democrats. The second is to fleece the taxpayers.

Any idea when we'll get the link to back up that statement?

[Common]

Public sector unions exist for two reasons. The first is to launder money for Democrats. The second is to fleece the taxpayers.

Horseshit, public sector unions exist to stop nepotism political job bartering, paybacks and assure fair employee treatment.

Once upon a time before Police had any job protections and no unions they were the dirtiest cops EVER and that was because they were under the thumb of the politicians for fear of losing their jobs and they did what the politicians told them to do. Cut this one loose change your report and it goes down hill from there, arrest this guy I think hes waffling my wife etc

[MisterVeritis]

Horse$#@!, public sector unions exist to stop nepotism political job bartering, paybacks and assure fair employee treatment.

Once upon a time before Police had any job protections and no unions they were the dirtiest cops EVER and that was because they were under the thumb of the politicians for fear of losing their jobs and they did what the politicians told them to do. Cut this one loose change your report and it goes down hill from there, arrest this guy I think hes waffling my wife etc
Really? Public sector unions by and large, support democrat politicians who, for donations of money and time, promise fat retirements and large raises. The only ones left out in the cold are the taxpayers who are shorn by the politicians much like sheep.

Make it illegal for public sector unions to participate in any way in politics and you might be believed in the future. Better still, make public sector unions illegal.

[Standing Wolf]

In the case before the court, dealing with the California teachers' union, fewer than 9% of the workers do not belong to the union. So not being permitted to loot those folks' paychecks is going to amount to a "mortal blow" to unions? I call b.s.

Look, you don't have to be anti-union to be against people taking other people's money against their will, and you don't have to be either anti-union or a Conservative to look askance at folks who whine and cry Poverty because a relatively minor source of income is being threatened as morally questionable.

I've never belonged to a union, but my wife joined one about ten years ago, after the union she had failed to join for five or six years stood up to her public employer in a big way. Her employer was denying that a clearly job-related injury was in fact that, was "losing" and falsifying paperwork, defying a judge's order - it was a nightmare...and the union that she didn't belong to stood tall. The local union President insisted on being present at every meeting and hearing and got my wife justice and a considerable amount of money. She joined that union the following month. That's the way union recruiting and fundraising should be done - a union showing its worth, rather than picking folks' pockets and whining when they're called on it.

[Green Arrow]

In the case before the court, dealing with the California teachers' union, fewer than 9% of the workers do not belong to the union. So not being permitted to loot those folks' paychecks is going to amount to a "mortal blow" to unions? I call b.s.

Look, you don't have to be anti-union to be against people taking other people's money against their will, and you don't have to be either anti-union or a Conservative to look askance at folks who whine and cry Poverty because a relatively minor source of income is being threatened as morally questionable.

I've never belonged to a union, but my wife joined one about ten years ago, after the union she had failed to join for five or six years stood up to her public employer in a big way. Her employer was denying that a clearly job-related injury was in fact that, was "losing" and falsifying paperwork, defying a judge's order - it was a nightmare...and the union that she didn't belong to stood tall. The local union President insisted on being present at every meeting and hearing and got my wife justice and a considerable amount of money. She joined that union the following month. That's the way union recruiting and fundraising should be done - a union showing its worth, rather than picking folks' pockets and whining when they're called on it.

That's how it used to be, but modern unions don't operate that way anymore. I hate to agree with someone like MisterVeritis, but more often than not Big Unions act just like Big Business these days.

[maineman]

Really? Public sector unions by and large, support democrat politicians who, for donations of money and time, promise fat retirements and large raises. The only ones left out in the cold are the taxpayers who are shorn by the politicians much like sheep.

Make it illegal for public sector unions to participate in any way in politics and you might be believed in the future. Better still, make public sector unions illegal.

how do democrats get fat pay raises for public sector employees when republicans are controlling the legislatures?

[Matty]

how do democrats get fat pay raises for public sector employees when republicans are controlling the legislatures?


Because Republicans don't always control legislatures.

[Tahuyaman]

I'm in the camp which says labor unions are a relic of the past and no longer serve a needed or valuable purpose.

[Standing Wolf]

Unions certainly should not be outlawed; workers should have right to organize and engage in collective bargaining if they choose to do so. On the other hand, unions should never be mandatory, nor should union membership. Government should neither impede unions or their members, or make unreasonable provisions for them, nor treat unions' "rights" as taking precedence over the rights of the individual worker - or, for that matter, those of the employers.

[MisterVeritis]

how do democrats get fat pay raises for public sector employees when republicans are controlling the legislatures?
Once upon a time before roughly 2010 many, if not most, state governments were controlled by Democrats. The cities that are bankrupt are examples of what happens when corrupt public sector unions join forces with corrupt democrat politicians. Of course, you actually knew that.

But it does not fit your personality to admit the corrupt connections between democrat politicians and corrupt public sector unions.

[MisterVeritis]

Unions certainly should not be outlawed; workers should have right to organize and engage in collective bargaining if they choose to do so. On the other hand, unions should never be mandatory, nor should union membership. Government should neither impede unions or their members, or make unreasonable provisions for them, nor treat unions' "rights" as taking precedence over the rights of the individual worker - or, for that matter, those of the employers.
Public sector unions should be outlawed or its members should not be allowed to vote for local politicians. The appeal of corruption is simply too dangerous for the taxpayers who have no means to defend themselves from the gang rape.

[Standing Wolf]

Public sector unions should be outlawed or its members should not be allowed to vote for local politicians. The appeal of corruption is simply too dangerous for the taxpayers who have no means to defend themselves from the gang rape.

Well, first of all, union members are taxpayers, too. Second, you can't seriously be suggesting that being a union member should disqualify someone from voting. There's no reason that most public sector jobs should be union-free; a few mass firings, in response to strikes or picketing, would send the appropriate message, I think.

[MisterVeritis]

Well, first of all, union members are taxpayers, too. Second, you can't seriously be suggesting that being a union member should disqualify someone from voting. There's no reason that most public sector jobs should be union-free; a few mass firings, in response to strikes or picketing, would send the appropriate message, I think.
There should be no public sector unions. None. The appeal of graft and corruption is simply too great. Public sector unions have a history. It is time to end public sector unions. The good news is that if this suit is won the public sector unions will naturally decline.

[jimmyz]

Yeah great now we can return to the Guilded Age where the Vanderbilts have 99% of the money and the rest of us have table scraps. Always amazes me how right wingers will vote against their best interests.

You can have your opinions because someone else pays for your housing, food, and health insurance. Once Daddy isn't your patron you'll change your spots. Or if you keep them there is always some community organizer position for you to agitate for. You can even promote your victim status as an oppressed South East Asian in pandering to the unwashed masses that would be your clientele.

[Standing Wolf]

the good news is that if this suit is won the public sector unions will naturally decline.

Nah...their lawyers will just have to be satisfied with a 9% reduction in their fees. Or the politicians in their pockets with a 9% reduction in the amount of their graft.

[MisterVeritis]

In the case before the court, dealing with the California teachers' union, fewer than 9% of the workers do not belong to the union. So not being permitted to loot those folks' paychecks is going to amount to a "mortal blow" to unions? I call b.s.

Look, you don't have to be anti-union to be against people taking other people's money against their will, and you don't have to be either anti-union or a Conservative to look askance at folks who whine and cry Poverty because a relatively minor source of income is being threatened as morally questionable.

I've never belonged to a union, but my wife joined one about ten years ago, after the union she had failed to join for five or six years stood up to her public employer in a big way. Her employer was denying that a clearly job-related injury was in fact that, was "losing" and falsifying paperwork, defying a judge's order - it was a nightmare...and the union that she didn't belong to stood tall. The local union President insisted on being present at every meeting and hearing and got my wife justice and a considerable amount of money. She joined that union the following month. That's the way union recruiting and fundraising should be done - a union showing its worth, rather than picking folks' pockets and whining when they're called on it.
Once unions cannot force one to pay dues the numbers of members will naturally decline.

[MisterVeritis]

Nah...their lawyers will just have to be satisfied with a 9% reduction in their fees. Or the politicians in their pockets with a 9% reduction in the amount of their graft.
Once unions cannot force non-members to pay dues the number of union members will decline.

[Standing Wolf]

Once unions cannot force non-members to pay dues the number of union members will decline.

They're not being made to pay dues - just certain fees connected, at least in theory, to the collective bargaining process.

[MisterVeritis]

They're not being made to pay dues - just certain fees connected, at least in theory, to the collective bargaining process.
Call it what you want. Once it is illegal to collect them, dues or fees, the number of members will naturally decline. Their power will decline as well.

[Standing Wolf]

Call it what you want. Once it is illegal to collect them, dues or fees, the number of members will naturally decline. Their power will decline as well.

It's true that union membership might be adversely affected IF the unions try to make up the money lost by jacking up the cost of union dues.

[Peter1469]

Any idea when we'll get the link to back up that statement?

FDR said similar things about public union.

[MisterVeritis]

It's true that union membership might be adversely affected IF the unions try to make up the money lost by jacking up the cost of union dues.
Either way, many will see this as a way out from under the union thumb. Unions are coercive. If the suit is won a lever of coercion will be ended.