Union Dues

Rebecca Friedrichs, a veteran Orange County teacher, is the lead plaintiff in a case brought by group of California schoolteachers, backed by a conservative group, asking the Supreme Court to rule that unions representing government workers can’t collect fees from those who choose not to join. (Greg Schneider/Courtesy of the Center for Individual Rights via AP)

By Sam Hananel, Associated Press
Posted: 06/30/15 – 8:12 AM PDT |

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will consider limiting the power of government employee unions to collect fees from non-members in a case that labor officials say could threaten membership and further weaken union clout.

The justices said Tuesday they will hear an appeal from a group of California teachers who say it violates their First Amendment rights to have to pay any fees if they disagree with a union’s positions and don’t want to join it.

The teachers want the court to overturn a 38-year-old legal precedent that said unions can require non-members to pay for bargaining costs as long as the fees don’t go toward political purposes. Public workers in half the states currently are required to pay “fair share” fees if they are represented by a union, even if they are not members.

But the high court has raised doubts about the viability of that regime in two cases over the past four years. The court has stopped short of overturning the 1977 case, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education case, but in a 5-4 opinion last year, Justice Samuel Alito called Abood “questionable on several grounds.”

Alito said a “bedrock principle” of the First Amendment is that “no person in this country may be compelled to subsidize speech by a third party that he or she does not wish to support.”

The lead plaintiff in the case is Rebecca Friedrichs, a public school teacher in Orange County, California, who says she resigned from the California Teachers Association because it takes positions that “are not in the best interests of me or my community.” She says she is still required to pay the union about $650 a year to cover bargaining costs.

The union says the fees are necessary because it has a legal duty to represent all teachers at the bargaining table, even those who are not part of the union.

A federal district court ruled against her and the other challengers, saying the outcome was clear under Abood. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.

Leaders of some of the nation’s largest public sector unions issued a joint statement calling the lawsuit an effort to weaken labor rights.

“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,” said the statement from the National Education Association, American Federation of Teachers, California Teachers Association, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and Service Employees International Union.

To read entire story, click here