This entry was written before Justice Scalia’s death. While the outcome of the Freidrichs case before the current court might be different than previously anticipated, the importance of defending against similar unfounded lawsuits in the future remains. If the Court had found in Ms. Freidrichs favor, it would have essentially gutted the foundation of the union movement, which is that we are stronger when we work together. Although it’s likely that this attempt won’t succeed, we must remain vigilant, because there will be many efforts going forward to undermine the hard fought rights of working men and woman.
There’s a very well-known case before the Supreme Court that’s gaining a lot of buzz not only here in California, but throughout the labor movement nationally. The case is Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, wherein a teacher is suing the California Teachers Association (CTA) for paying fair share fees to her union.
The fair share fee was first decided in 1977 in another case where the Supremes ruled that when all employees are represented exclusively by a public-employee union, nonmembers would still be represented and pays a fair share fee for activities related to collective bargaining. Since unions are required to represent members and non-members alike, members pay dues and non-members pay a fair share fee. Forty years later, the plaintiffs are trying to upend this longstanding law to achieve their political goal of weakening the labor movement. The case would ban the rights of CTA and local school districts to have fair share agreements for all workers. They argue that the fair share fees are a violation of First Amendment rights.
On paper, the plaintiff is Southern California teacher Rebecca Friedrichs, who has been an outspoken opponent of her union. But a deeper look reveals that the case is backed by wealthy individuals and groups in the anti-labor movement, some tied to the Koch Brothers.
This case is an attack by corporate interests on hardworking men and women. Hypothetically speaking, if Friedrichs is successful, the union would still be obligated by law to represent all employees, the difference being that employees now have the option to contribute to their union, while unions would continue representing all employees. Workers who believe in unions and see the true benefits of the collective bargaining process will rightfully pay their dues. A decision in favor of Friedrichs would defeat the notion of fair share, essentially giving some workers a free ride and receive the many benefits negotiated by the union for which their dues-paying colleagues are shouldering costs for. This kind of attack would bring tremendous damage to workers who need the protections and benefits provided by their union. Simply put, this case is corporate interests trying to gut collective bargaining rights for all workers.
A few weeks ago the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for the case. A number of interests will file their briefs to the Supreme Court for consideration in the case. A decision is expected in June 2016. Until then, let us hope the Court makes a decision to protect the current system in place, the foundation built by our working class. They should choose to preserve our system which has and continues to bring workers to the negotiating table and give workers a voice for decades to come. After all, it is called fair share.
Assemblymember Evan Low represents California’s 28th Assembly District 28 which includes Campbell, Cupertino, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Saratoga, and the areas of West San Jose, Willow Glen, Cambrian, and Almaden Valley in San Jose. He is currently serving in the leadership team as Assistant Majority Whip.
Do you have a news tip you would like to share? Would you like to contribute to The Left Hook? Email us at LeftHookBlog@gmail.com
No Comments