On March 29, the Supreme Court ruled 4-4 on Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association. Thus, teachers in California and 23 other states must still pay agency fees towards unions regardless of their membership status. The less than majority rule means the lower court ruling, which Fredrich lost, stands. Mandatory agency fees continue to be ruled constitutional.
Elementary school teacher Rebecca Friedrichs and nine other California teachers had brought a First Amendment case all the way up to the Supreme Court in Friedrichs vs. California Teachers Association (CTA). In California, and in states without right-to-work laws, public school teachers must pay agency fees annually. Whether a teacher is a member of the California Teachers Association or not, he or she must pay a fee ranging from $650 for nonmembers to $1000 for members of the union. The fees go towards representation for “collective bargaining,” where unions represent both members and nonmembers to benefit all employees. Friedrichs argues that mandatory payment towards a union violates her and other teachers’ First Amendment rights of free speech and free association.
In 1977, in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the Supreme Court had previously ruled that unions could collect fees from nonmembers so long as the fees from nonmembers are used apolitically.
However, the plaintiffs in Friedrichs v. CTA believe that union support and agency fees should be optional under claims that unions are inherently political and no teacher should be required to support a particular political agenda. According to U.S. News, the California Teachers Association argues that the lesser fees are “reasonable payments for representation in labor negotiations, and that fees prevent nonmembers from free-riding and secure the state’s interest in stable labor relations.”
Aragon teacher Carlo Corti, who is the bargaining chair for the San Mateo High School District, says, “This [mandatory law] was designed to have teachers and the districts that pay them to have easier negotiations, the benefit of efficiency. Having one group of people do negotiations is something that benefits everybody. We just bargain one salary or one set of benefits.”
The California Teachers Association further does not want less revenue generated from mandatory fees and in tandem, less political clout as less teachers would pay for the Association’s membership.
Corti believes that agency fees are not a violation of the first amendment, for teachers can opt out of placing their money for political purposes. He adds, “I think the issue that people bring up is that ‘what if they don’t agree with everything the union agrees with?’ But the fees don’t really go to that, they go to the running of the union, to allow them to negotiate contracts and things like that. There are actually provisions in our contract in our union, that if you don’t want your money going to political causes, if you don’t want your money going to candidates, then you can ask that your money not go to that. If you’re a teacher at Aragon’s campus and you don’t agree with the association, you still get the benefits of our negotiations and our work, so that’s why I don’t see it as a violation that you pay those membership fees.”
The lead plaintiff, Friedrichs, and the other teachers had the Center for Individual Rights (CIR) law firm represent them. The case surpassed the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on June 29, 2015 while being funded by the Wisconsin-based, conservative Bradley Foundation. The ruling was a 4-4 tie because of the sudden death of Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia. It is believed that his reliably conservative vote would have swayed the vote right towards a 5-4 vote in favor of Friedrichs. Friedrichs and the CIR are applying for an appeal.
SMUHSD Teachers Association vice president Kirt Peterson explains the role of public employee unions, saying, “Maternity leave was fought for by a public employee union, [and] paid vacation time and sick leave in general. People have become complacent, thinking that these things are human rights, not rights that were fought for. I’m not saying that it’s a problem with our union here, but it is a problem with public employee unions in general. People have kind of forgotten on a global level what it is that we do.”
Corti believes that eliminating agency fees would weaken unions. Corti says, “The biggest single danger of eliminating agency fees would be that every year, the Teachers Association would go around and ask the people to give to their union for their membership as opposed to automatically having it deducted from their paycheck.”
Peterson believes that this case was a calculated attempt to turn California towards the path of becoming a right-to-work state. Right-to-work laws prevent any money from being collected from non-members to cover costs of collective bargaining. Peterson says, “It’s not really a positive thing for workers, but it’s a great policy for corporations. 25 states have it [the right to work laws] … They are trying to fundamentally destroy the funding stream for public employee unions, not just for teachers. This was a teacher in LA, but it would affect all public employees in California. It’s systemic. What this process is really about is a fundamental attempt to destroy the perceived power structure of the Democratic Party, which is very much supported by public employee unions.”
