The U.S. Supreme Court will consider on Monday a
conservative legal challenge targeting public sector unions when the justices
take up a case brought by non-union teachers in California who object to being
compelled to pay for collective bargaining.
The dispute pits 10 public school teachers and
the Christian Educators Association International against the California
Teachers Association, an influential union with 325,000 members and a history
of backing liberal political causes.
The case could erode organized labor's influence
by allowing public sector workers who are not union members but are forced
under state law to pay "agency fees" equivalent to union dues to stop
providing this money. This would reduce the income and political clout of public
sector unions.
Such a ruling would apply in 25 U.S. states that
do not already have what is known as "right-to-work" laws that
prohibit workers from being forced to pay fees to a union.
A ruling in favor of the non-union teachers
would be a blow to organized labor because unionized teachers and other civil
servants in states without right-to-work laws comprise its main power base.
The 10 teachers assert that California law
violates non-union workers' free-speech rights under the U.S. Constitution's
First Amendment by requiring them to pay the "agency fees" toward
collective bargaining activities.
The teachers who joined the lawsuit are asking
the nine justices to overturn a 1977 Supreme Court ruling that allowed
public-sector unions to collect fees from workers who do not want
representation as long as the money is not spent on political activities.
San Bernardino County teacher Karen Cuen, one of
the plaintiffs, quit the union in 1994. That means she already opted out of
paying for political activities. But she said other union spending is
problematic, too.
"I think pretty much everything the union
does is political. I feel like being a public employee we shouldn't be
bargaining with taxpayer money. There's an inherent conflict of interest,"
Cuen said.
Eric Heins, the union's president, noted that
state law requires the union to represent all workers during collective
bargaining, the process in which unions negotiate contracts with employers on
behalf of employees, regardless of whether they are members.
Undermining the current system would mean some
workers would benefit from what the union negotiates on their behalf but they
would "not have to pay a dime," Heins added.
The Supreme Court will hear an 80-minute oral
argument on Monday, with a ruling due by the end of June.
No comments:
Post a Comment