Supreme Court agrees to hear challenge to Public Employee Unions

[Melensdad]

This could be the BIGGEST case in decades if the SCOTUS overturns the ruling that allowed for the widespread formation of public sector unions. I believe JFK, by executive order, technically allowed it, but they really didn't take hold at that point.

This would benefit taxpayers the most as public sector pensions, public sector pay and benefits are all outstripping private sector and it is very difficult to fire government workers so they essentially get astounding job security with great benefits and higer pay relative to counterparts in the private sector.

We will NOT know the results of this case for another year.

http://thehill.com/regulation/court...-hear-case-challenging-public-employee-unions

Supreme Court to hear case challenging public employee unions


The Supreme Court has decided to hear a case in the next term that could threaten union shops in public workplaces.

The case, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, centers on a California law that allows school districts to require public school teachers, as a condition of employment, to either join the union representing teachers in their district or pay the equivalent of dues to that union.

If a majority of employees in a school district join the union, the law allows it to become the exclusive bargaining representative for the public school employees and bargain on a wide range of terms and conditions, including wages, hours, health and welfare benefits, leave, transfer and reassignment policies, class size, and procedures for evaluating employees and processing grievances, court documents said.

Union dues for nonmembers typically consume roughly 2 percent of a new teacher’s salary and sometimes increase regardless of whether there is an increase in teacher pay. According to court documents, the total amount of annual dues often exceed $1,000 per teacher, while the amount of the refund received by nonmembers who successfully opt out each year is generally around $350 to $400.

Some teachers in California, including Rebecca Friedrichs, argue that union shops and their requirement that every public school teacher annually renew, in writing, his or her objection to subsidizing the unions’ political agenda, violate their right to free speech.

The Supreme Court is now being asked to decide whether the 1977 ruling in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which upheld union shops in public workplaces, should be overturned and public-sector union shops ruled unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

The high court will also decide whether it violates the First Amendment to require public employees to affirmatively opt out of union payments, rather than requiring employees to affirmatively consent to the union fees.

In a joint statement, National Education Association President Lily Eskelsen García; American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten; California Teachers Association President Eric Heins; the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees President Lee Saunders; and the Service Employees International Union President Mary Kay Henry said they are disappointed the court is revisiting a decision that has made it possible for public employees to join unions at work for more than 35 years.

“When people come together in a union, they can help make sure that our communities have jobs that support our families,” they said. “It means teachers can stand up for their students. First responders can push for critical equipment to protect us. And social workers can advocate effectively for children’s safety.”

 

[Melensdad]

And another story on this topic, with some details about the teacher who is behind the case against the public teachers union.

Link to Daily Caller article at the end of the story.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided Tuesday to hear a case that could end mandatory union membership for all government workers. Rebecca Friedrichs is the teacher at the center of it all.

It all started when Friedrichs, who teaches out of Buena Park, Calif., learned the union culture benefited its members at the expense of the students. Despite her disagreement with the California Teachers Association (CTA), she was forced to continue paying into it.

“I am not anti-union at all, I came from a union family,” Friedrichs told The Daily Caller News Foundation in April. “I am against forced unions.”

Eventually this led her and nine other teachers to sue the CTA and its affiliate, the National Education Association. Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association goes beyond just public school teachers however. A verdict in favor of Friedrichs and the other teachers involved could result in all government workers gaining the right to stop paying union fees.

“I’m hoping we will be a huge step in restoring liberty,” Friedrichs noted. “I hope we’ll start a ball rolling towards more freedom.”

The lawsuit was filed in April of 2013. It argues that the California law which allows for mandatory union membership is unconstitutional because it violates their First Amendment rights. In January of 2015, the teachers petitioned the Supreme Court to hear their arguments against the law and to overturn it.

“The question of whether teachers and other government employees can be required to subsidize the speech of a union they do not support as a condition of working for their own government is now squarely before the Court,” Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, told TheDCNF in an email.

Teachers are allowed to leave their union but are still required to pay fees. If they leave they lose their liability services and the ability to talk at union meetings. Since public school teachers are government workers, a verdict in favor of Friedrichs is likely to set a precedent allowing all government workers to stop paying union dues or fees.

“This case is about the right of individuals to decide for themselves whether to join and pay dues to an organization that purports to speak on their behalf,” Terry Pell, president of the Center for Individual Rights (CIR), told TheDCNF in an email. “We are seeking the end of compulsory union dues across the nation on the basis of the free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.”

CIR is a non-profit public interest firm representing Friedrichs and the other teachers involved in the case.

“Rebecca Friedrichs and the other California teachers we are representing are looking forward to their long overdue day in court,” Pell added.

Supporters are optimistic the court will side with Friedrichs given recent decisions. Last year in the case Harris v. Quinn the court ruled Illinois state homecare workers could not be forced to pay union dues.

“We hope the High Court will follow through on last year’s Harris decision and ensure that no public employee will ever again be forced to pay union dues to get or keep a job,” Mix added.

CTA did not respond to a request for comment from TheDCNF.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/30/h...he-biggest-threat-to-big-labor/#ixzz3eaLwwjwS​

 

[Doc]

After the last two decisions I do not have faith that SCOTUS actually decides cases. It appears as if they rule how this administration wants them to rule.

Does anyone really think there is a chance they would rule against the Unions?

 

[MrLiberty]

I'll predict it right now, it will be a 6 to 3 ruling with Roberts and Kennedy joining the liberals on the court.

 

[Doc]

I'll predict it right now, it will be a 6 to 3 ruling with Roberts and Kennedy joining the liberals on the court.

You have to admit Mr. L, that is a pretty easy prediction. Now, if you could tell us what color under-roos they'd be wearing when they cast the vote, then I'd be impressed.