This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/jul/02/unions-supreme-court-case-public-sector-right-to-work

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Unions fear supreme court case could deal severe blow across public sector Unions fear supreme court case could deal severe blow across public sector
(about 4 hours later)
The US supreme court agreed this week to hear a case that could deal a severe blow to public-sector unions nationwide.The US supreme court agreed this week to hear a case that could deal a severe blow to public-sector unions nationwide.
If the court rules against unions in this case – and many labor leaders fear it will – it could in effect create a nationwide “right to work” law for public-sector workers, a development that could sap union treasuries. Many conservatives hope the court will rule against labor because government-employee unions – with half the country’s union membership – are among the biggest campaign donors to Democrats.If the court rules against unions in this case – and many labor leaders fear it will – it could in effect create a nationwide “right to work” law for public-sector workers, a development that could sap union treasuries. Many conservatives hope the court will rule against labor because government-employee unions – with half the country’s union membership – are among the biggest campaign donors to Democrats.
Related: US supreme court to hear challenge to financial basis of public-sector unionsRelated: US supreme court to hear challenge to financial basis of public-sector unions
The plaintiffs are California teachers who, working with conservative, anti-union lawyers, maintain that any requirement that they pay “fair-share fees” to the union that represents them violates their first amendment right of free speech. They argue, for example, that teachers’ unions, even by pushing for raises, engage in political speech because that might force communities to increase taxes.The plaintiffs are California teachers who, working with conservative, anti-union lawyers, maintain that any requirement that they pay “fair-share fees” to the union that represents them violates their first amendment right of free speech. They argue, for example, that teachers’ unions, even by pushing for raises, engage in political speech because that might force communities to increase taxes.
Labor leaders deride these arguments and fear that if the court bars “fair-share” fees, that will give a green light to the “free rider” phenomenon unions abhor. Some legal scholars say they doubt the court would have agreed to hear the case, Friedrichs v California Teachers Association, unless the five most conservative justices were ready to prohibit requirements for public-sector “fair-share” fees.Labor leaders deride these arguments and fear that if the court bars “fair-share” fees, that will give a green light to the “free rider” phenomenon unions abhor. Some legal scholars say they doubt the court would have agreed to hear the case, Friedrichs v California Teachers Association, unless the five most conservative justices were ready to prohibit requirements for public-sector “fair-share” fees.
The plaintiffs have asked the court to overturn a 38-year-old case, Abood v Detroit Board of Education, in which the justices held that fair-share fees do not violate the first amendment.The plaintiffs have asked the court to overturn a 38-year-old case, Abood v Detroit Board of Education, in which the justices held that fair-share fees do not violate the first amendment.
“Several conservative justices were very upset about the same-sex marriage case taking an issue away from the voters,” said Benjamin Sachs, a Harvard Law School professor. “Right-to-work has been decided by voters in 25 right-to-work states and 25 fair-share states. If the court holds that fair-share agreements are unconstitutional in the public sector, that will mean the court would be imposing a very new view of the first amendment and taking the issue away from the voters.”“Several conservative justices were very upset about the same-sex marriage case taking an issue away from the voters,” said Benjamin Sachs, a Harvard Law School professor. “Right-to-work has been decided by voters in 25 right-to-work states and 25 fair-share states. If the court holds that fair-share agreements are unconstitutional in the public sector, that will mean the court would be imposing a very new view of the first amendment and taking the issue away from the voters.”
Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, a longtime foe of labor, said he hoped the court would bar fair-share requirements, saying: “The American people overwhelmingly support the principle that while individual employees should be free to join and pay dues to a union if they so choose, none should be required to do so, which is fully in line with the first amendment’s protections.”Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, a longtime foe of labor, said he hoped the court would bar fair-share requirements, saying: “The American people overwhelmingly support the principle that while individual employees should be free to join and pay dues to a union if they so choose, none should be required to do so, which is fully in line with the first amendment’s protections.”
In seeking supreme court review, the plaintiffs’ lawyers wrote: “This is a challenge to the largest regime of state-compelled speech for public employees in the nation. Each year, the state of California compels its public-school teachers to make hundreds of millions of dollars in payments to” the California Teachers Association.In seeking supreme court review, the plaintiffs’ lawyers wrote: “This is a challenge to the largest regime of state-compelled speech for public employees in the nation. Each year, the state of California compels its public-school teachers to make hundreds of millions of dollars in payments to” the California Teachers Association.
The plaintiffs are asking the court not just to prohibit fair-share fees, but to require unions to have workers individually opt into – rather than opt out of – that portion of union fees that pays for traditional political activities like political campaigning and lobbying.The plaintiffs are asking the court not just to prohibit fair-share fees, but to require unions to have workers individually opt into – rather than opt out of – that portion of union fees that pays for traditional political activities like political campaigning and lobbying.
Many liberals fear that a ruling against public-sector unions would be a boon to Republicans, much like the court’s Citizens United, Voter ID and Voting Rights Act decisions.Many liberals fear that a ruling against public-sector unions would be a boon to Republicans, much like the court’s Citizens United, Voter ID and Voting Rights Act decisions.
Some labor experts suggest that a ruling against the unions could unintentionally give the labor movement new life by forcing it to do more to represent and mobilize members to encourage them to remain in the union and pay dues, rather than drop out and stop paying fees.Some labor experts suggest that a ruling against the unions could unintentionally give the labor movement new life by forcing it to do more to represent and mobilize members to encourage them to remain in the union and pay dues, rather than drop out and stop paying fees.
But Nelson Lichtenstein, a labor historian at the University of California, Santa Barbara, said “right-to-work” laws generally weaken unions by causing a drop in membership and forcing unions to devote more energy and resources to encouraging members to remain in the union and pay dues – instead of engaging in traditional activities, like lobbying for worker-friendly legislation or mounting unionization drives.But Nelson Lichtenstein, a labor historian at the University of California, Santa Barbara, said “right-to-work” laws generally weaken unions by causing a drop in membership and forcing unions to devote more energy and resources to encouraging members to remain in the union and pay dues – instead of engaging in traditional activities, like lobbying for worker-friendly legislation or mounting unionization drives.
Frank Wells, a spokesman for the California Teachers Association, said: “We’re hoping for the best and preparing for the worst.”Frank Wells, a spokesman for the California Teachers Association, said: “We’re hoping for the best and preparing for the worst.”
In recent years, Justice Samuel A Alito Jr has been paving the way for the court to find “fair-share” fees unconstitutional. Last year in Harris v Quinn, Justice Alito, writing for the majority, ruled that home-care aides could not be required to pay fair-share fees, although he stopped short of issuing a blanket prohibition for public-sector workers. In recent years, supreme court justice Samuel Alito has been paving the way for the court to find “fair-share” fees unconstitutional. Last year in Harris v Quinn, Alito, writing for the majority, ruled that home-care aides could not be required to pay fair-share fees, although he stopped short of issuing a blanket prohibition for public-sector workers.
In the new fair-share case, many unions are looking to one of the most conservative justices, Antonin Scalia, to save them because he wrote in a 1991 case, Lehnert v Ferris Faculty Association: “Where the state imposes upon the union a duty to deliver services, it may permit the union to demand reimbursement for them.”In the new fair-share case, many unions are looking to one of the most conservative justices, Antonin Scalia, to save them because he wrote in a 1991 case, Lehnert v Ferris Faculty Association: “Where the state imposes upon the union a duty to deliver services, it may permit the union to demand reimbursement for them.”
In ways, Justice Alito and other conservatives are shunning the notions of unionism – that workers need to band together and support each other – in favor of the libertarian notion, that government should not be allowed to require workers to pay union fees because that would violate their free speech rights. In ways, Alito and other conservatives are shunning the notions of unionism – that workers need to band together and support each other – in favor of the libertarian notion that government should not be allowed to require workers to pay union fees because that would violate their free speech rights.
In a joint statement, the presidents of the National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers, and other union leaders, said, “We are disappointed that at a time when big corporations and the wealthy few are rewriting the rules in their favor, knocking American families and our entire economy off-balance, the supreme court has chosen to take a case that threatens the fundamental promise of America – that if you work hard and play by the rules you should be able to provide for your family and live a decent life.” In a joint statement, the presidents of the National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers, and other union leaders, said: “We are disappointed that at a time when big corporations and the wealthy few are rewriting the rules in their favor, knocking American families and our entire economy off-balance, the supreme court has chosen to take a case that threatens the fundamental promise of America – that if you work hard and play by the rules you should be able to provide for your family and live a decent life.”