SCOTUS Lets Stand Unions' Right To Collect Fees From Non-Union Workers

In a major victory for public sector unions, a divided Supreme Court has let a lower court ruling stand in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday split 4-4 on a conservative legal challenge to a vital source of funds for organized labor, affirming a lower-court ruling that allowed California to force non-union workers to pay fees to public-employee unions. [snip]

A ruling allowing non-union workers to stop paying so-called "agency fees" equivalent to union dues, currently mandatory under laws in about half the 50 states including California, would have deprived public sector unions of millions of dollars a year, reducing their income and political power.

The decision means the status quo remains, with the unions able to collect fees from non-union workers.

Once again, the death of "Justice" Scalia deprived the right- wing of a majority, frustrating decades- long Republican efforts to undercut public sector unions and their collective bargaining and political power, at least for now. 

Letters We Wish We'd Written: Supreme Court Union-Busting Dept.

As we noted Tuesday, the Republican Supreme Court will be ruling on Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association this session.  The case involves plaintiffs backed by a Koch brothers group who are challenging the right of a public sector teachers union to collect dues from teachers who aren't union members.  In order to find for the plaintiffs, the Republican Supreme Court would have to overturn a 40- year- old precedent.

We thought these letters to the editor of the once great Washington Post Bezos Bugle expressed our thoughts on the subject pretty well:

The attorneys in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association assert that agency fees “require that employees and teachers who disagree with [union] positions must nevertheless subsidize the union,” as Justice Anthony M. Kennedy put it [“Justices seem leery of labor’s forced dues,” front page, Jan. 12]. Logic demands that those “who disagree with [union] positions” carry their position to its natural conclusion. If you are anti-union, you are entitled to your opinion, but you should be consistently and thoroughly anti-union and demonstrate the integrity of your moral stand by refusing all workplace gains won by unions.

I am sure that employers will be all too happy to do their part to reward anti-union employees by abrogating the 40-hour workweek, paid vacation time , fair wage scales, health and retirement benefits and the entire spectrum of workplace improvements won by unions for all workers over the past 120 years. 

These benefits rightfully belong only to those who fight for them.

Greg Johnson, College Park

* * *

Is the Supreme Court worried that union fees are more “coercive” than using corporate funds to influence democratic decisions, as the Citizens United case permits?

The United States pioneered civic organizations as places of common action. But perhaps the Supreme Court believes that civic organizations should have only certain political leanings and that the rest of us should just enjoy watching TV and not mess up civic life by forming powerful interest groups that might conflict with corporate ones. Too bad.

Since Franklin and Jefferson, haven’t we learned that democracy thrives on such interest group conflicts?

Jeff Blum, Takoma Park

Of course, the ultra- right Koch brothers, other Republican plutocrat groups and their Supreme Court "justices" understand political speech as essentially a commodity -- the more speech you can buy, the better (remember, "corporations are people, my friend!").  And the more you can monopolize political speech, well that's basically the ultra- right Republican model, revealed here once again.

Republican Supreme Court Looking To Knee-Cap Public Unions, Democratic Party

As we note below, the influence of right- wing billionaire money is a pervasive, continuing threat to American democracy.  The Citizens United decision opened the floodgates to unlimited Republican plutocrat money to fund the nihilist, government- hamstringing crackpots you see in the House and Senate, as well as throughout the States.  Unions are one of the few counterweights to the oligarchs, and a bedrock supporter of Democrats and progressive causes. But, it would appear that, while corporations are considered "people" (my friend), unions are apparently fair game to these malicious mossbacks.

Now, the plutocrat- enabling, partisan Republican Supreme Court is considering the case of Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, which challenges a public sector union's (in this case the California Teachers Association's) right to collect union dues from teachers who aren't union members.  The right of such unions to collect these "agency fees" was established by precedent nearly 40 years ago in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education.  The plaintiff's case is being argued by uber wingnut libertarian attorney Michael A. Carvin, the same dickbag who has tried to take down Obamacare in the past.  (He works for an Koch brothers funded outfit called Center for Individual Rights, by the way.)  It seems he has abiding issues with the 21st Century.

You might ask, why is this such a big deal?  We'll let frequent blind squirrel Dana Milbank, who found this acorn, explain:

By all appearances at Monday’s argument, the five Republican-appointed justices are ready to upend a 40-year precedent guiding labor relations in favor of a new approach that will deplete public-sector unions’ finances and reduce their political clout. The case, from California, involves arcane issues of “agency fees” and member opt-outs, but make no mistake: This is about campaign finance, and, in particular, propping up the Republican Party.  [snip]

The only question is how big a loss Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association will be for the unions. It’s virtually certain to be another step toward American oligarchy. The court’s conservative majority, setting aside a professed respect for precedent and states’ authority, is putting a thumb on the scale of justice in favor of the wealthy donors who have purchased the GOP and much of the government.

With the emergence of (ironically, self-funding plutocrat) neo-fascist fartbag Donald "Rump" Trump and his Stormtrumper legions with their mis-directed anger, bookended by the possible crippling of one of the major supporters of the Democratic Party, you are seeing a powerful convergence of right- wing reaction to progressive gains in the past several decades.  If the California teachers association case is decided in favor of the plaintiffs, it could signal problems ahead not just for public unions, but for unions in the private sector who've been under siege by the same forces of reaction for half a century.

BONUS:  Steve M. has a good read on the same subject.