Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association could end public unions' coercion of dues
The case of Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association is a nightmare for public employee unions and their allies in the Democratic Party. If the Court rules against the unions, their political power in state and local government will be diminished. A semblance of balance would be restored to the political life of many states.
“In the first decade of the 21st century, the California Teachers Association (CTA) spent more on political campaigning in the Golden State than the pharmaceutical, oil, and tobacco industries combined.”
A more level political playing field between the public unions and their adversaries would be established, opening new opportunities for policy change. School reform ideas that have been blocked would stand a better chance of passing state legislatures and school boards. One would have grounds to hope that the performance of state and local government could be improved.
No wonder people think the stakes in Friedrichs are high.
At issue in the case, heard by the Supreme Court January 11, is the constitutionality of laws in 23 states that permit public employee unions to charge workers who refuse to join the union “agency fees.” The amounts of these fees are usually nearly identical to union dues. Their effect is to increase the unions’ members and money. Consequently, government worker unions in general and teacher unions in particular have become some of the biggest spenders on electioneering and lobbying and are core supporters of the Democratic Party. For example, in the first decade of the 21st century, the California Teachers Association (CTA) spent more on political campaigning in the Golden State than the pharmaceutical, oil, and tobacco industries combined.
The constitutional basis for current arrangements is Abood v. Detroit Board of Education—a 1977 Supreme Court decision that can be described as “Solomonic.” The court in that case reaffirmed that workers could not be forced to join a union but held that they could be forced to pay their share of the costs of collective bargaining. Abood rested on a “free rider” argument. In this view, if a union is legally bound to equally represent all employees in a given workplace, then all workers—whether or not they join the union—must pay their “fair share” of those costs.
Friedrichs directly challenges Abood. In Friedrichs, the plaintiffs contend that some workers First Amendment rights are violated because those who don’t want to join the union end up paying for speech with which they disagree. This happens because there isn’t a clear line separating spending on political activity from spending on collective bargaining. In addition, the plaintiffs contend that almost every subject of collective bargaining is inherently a political issue in the public sector.
If the court rules agency fees unconstitutional violations of free speech, one should expect a few things to happen. One is that less money will flow into the coffers of public sector unions. For instance, over 90 percent of teachers in California belong to the CTA and only 9 percent pay agency fees. So right off the bat, the union would lose the agency fee revenue. In addition, public union membership would fall—at least slightly—over time. Some percentage of union members, perhaps as much as 10 percent, will decide to opt out. With less money and fewer members public sector unions will be a diminished force in American politics.
However, public sector unions won’t completely disappear. In states that don’t allow agency fees, 68 percent of teachers, on average, belong to unions. In places where agency fees for teachers have been eliminated in recent years—such as Indiana in 1995 and Oklahoma in 2001—membership declines were modest as the unions redoubled their efforts to retain people.
“The unions would likely remain important political players in many states. But they would no longer consistently be the top dogs.”
The unions would likely remain important political players in many states. But they would no longer consistently be the top dogs. To get some perspective, consider that from 2000-2009 the teachers unions alone were the largest campaign contributors to candidates for office in 36 states, according to Stanford political scientist Terry Moe. All of the 14 states where they weren’t number one prohibited agency fees.
Nonetheless, the experience of other states shows that without agency fee provisions, fewer public employees would choose to become union members and pay union dues. Free choice, rather than legal coercion, would determine the size of union membership and the amount of money in union bank accounts. Public employee unions would no longer be able to exercise the outsize political influence that they do in California, New York, and elsewhere.
This piece originally appeared in LifeZette
This piece originally appeared in LifeZette