This week, the Supreme Court will hear a case called Friedrichs vs. California Teachers Association. The plaintiffs represent teachers who not want to pay union dues. They say that the requirement to pay dues violates their free speech rights. Friedrichs is backed by political, financial, and ideological groups who hope to cripple the last bastion of organized labor. If the plaintiffs win, labor’s resources and political clout will be severely reduced. This case will be a milestone in the survival or destruction of public sector unions.
In the article linked above, Richard Kahlenberg argues that diminishing the power of public sector unions diminishes our democracy. In our society, money buys political influence and voice. If labor’s voice is stilled, only the rich will have political power. There will be no organized countervailing voice to prevent them from controlling everything.
Friedrichs is a teacher who objects to paying dues to the CTA. However, she is not required to pay for political activities, because of an earlier Supreme Court decision called Abood.
The current legal framework in which courts weigh cases such as Friedrichs is narrowly constrained, balancing the free speech rights of dissenting union members against the state’s interests in promoting stable labor relations with its public employees.
In the 1977 case of Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court reached a sensible compromise that properly balanced these two sets of interests by splitting union dues into two categories: those that support political speech, and those that support bread–and-butter collective bargaining. Because the First Amendment’s free speech clause provides a right to not be compelled by the state to subsidize speech with which one disagrees, dissenting public employees cannot be required by the state to join a union, or to subsidize the union’s political and lobbying efforts to promote certain positions of public concern….
According to the counsel for Friedrichs, annual dues to the CTA amount to approximately $1,000 per teacher, of which nonmembers receive a refund of roughly $350 to $400 for expenses unrelated to collective bargaining. In other words, Friedrichs is happy to accept increases in wages and benefits the union negotiates hard to win, but does not want to pay the $600 to $650 per year that other members contribute in order to make those wage gains possible. Will she give back her raises, forgo health care benefits, give up the right to pursue grievances, and agree to teach larger classes that the union negotiated? The amicus brief of the American Federation of Teachers and the American Association of University Professors put it well: there is no “constitutional right to a free ride.”
Kahlenberg notes:
All unions—including, and perhaps especially, public sector unions—also contribute to one of the most important foundational interests of the state: democracy. And they do this in many different ways. Unions are critical civic organizations that serve as a check on government power. They are important players in promoting a strong middle class, upon which democracy depends. They serve as schools of democracy for workers. And teacher unions, in particular, help ensure that our educational system is sufficiently funded to teach children to become thoughtful and enlightened citizens in our self-governing democracy….
Strong unions helped build the middle class in America after the Great Depression, and continue to have a positive effect on ameliorating extreme inequalities of wealth. By bargaining for fair wages and benefits, unions in the public and private sector help foster broadly shared prosperity. Research finds, for example, that unions compress wage differences between management and labor. According to one study, “controlling for variation in human resource practices, unionized establishments have an average of 23.2 percentage point lower management-to-worker pay ratio relative to non-union workplaces.”
Kahlenberg documents that the decline in union membership parallels the decline in the middle class. Extremes of wealth and poverty are not good for democracy.
This is an excellent overview of the potential damage that this Supreme Court decision might do to unions and to democracy. It occurs to me as I read it that the contentious battle over school choice, funded amply by billionaires, is intended to divert attention from crucial economic issues. Billionaires would have us believe that they are advancing the economic opportunities for black and Hispanic children even as they use their political clout to destroy the jobs and economic security of their families, as well as the economic prospects for the “scholars” in their charter schools.
Since I retired, I see that the unions are not willing to back up teachers. They seem to be able to negotiate salary increases, but fail teachers that stand up for the rights of students.
My understanding is that teachers have the right to direct their dues to a favorite charity. If they don’t want to pay dues, should the be given salary increases?
Certainly, no easy answer, but in my opinion, other that Chicago and Seattle, I don’t see the unions really standing up for what they were originally intended.
You may what teaching looks like without unions. But for retirees, perhaps looking at the hit the Detroit pensioners or Teamster pensioners took would enlighten many of the “I’ve got mine” crowd.
I find it somewhat hypocritical that at least one of the plaintiffs (Elrich) wrote in the WSJ how he has enjoyed 30 years of teaching in a unionized state (California) plus will enjoy a union-negotiated retirement safety net, yet now seeks to dismantle unions for everyone else under the false accusation “everyone is forced to join a union” and teachers must have “choice”. No one is forced to join a union, but fair share fees cover negotiations and avoid free-riders. Imagine if the tax code said “America needs a strong military, but only pay for it if you want to”. As far as choice, every state offers non-union employment in charter or private schools.
If anyone is under the myth that eliminating unions allows meritocracy to bloom, they have never truly experienced “free markets”. I have never been in a union, but understand fully the advantage of unions providing a Thermopylaen stand against the greed, nepotism, and anti-democratic excesses of corporate governance. My private sector experience in non-union workplaces demonstrated that everyone is pretty much paid the same, meritocracy has to do more with who you know or are related to, and companies see employees as annoying costs on a cash flow statement. I worked twice as hard as some incompetent relative or golfing buddy of the CEO, but was paid half as much.
But I see America as no longer a democratic society but one controlled by a few in black robes or billionaires pulling the strings of their puppet politicians. If America no longer wants professional, qualified, and motivated teachers for their children, perhaps that is what they deserve. If parents agree with the demise of public schools and democratic institutions, then they can enjoy a private education system where you take out loans for first graders or only the wealthy have access to education. It may just be America has to experience the negative effects of the destruction of education before she wakes up. But I suspect by then it will be too late.
The fact is that the Friedrichs case is likely to win at the supreme court. This will be a near-death blow to public sector unions and the labor movement in general. This is the first reality that we must apprehend and digest.
Next, we have to be clear that this means that we (public sector teachers) will be left without even the structure by which to defend our professions. Our unions will likely stay open for business but will be so drastically weakened as to be a very weak player at the negotiating table. We will feel the results of this rapidly.
I and many others have been vocal critics of the leadership of UFT and NYSUT in particular, suggesting that they have egregiously let down their membership over the last decade by not mounting the rhetorical, political, and philosophical defenses of our profession equal to the attacks against it. Current leadership, I and others have stated, have been and continue to be complicit in the disassembling of public education. Strong stuff for sure. Short term, the Friedrichs win will certainly announce to this awful leadership that they are in for quite a haircut. While this is easy for the shortsighted among us to applaud, we must reckon with the larger view that the possibility of sound, strong, powerful unions that fight for us has been deeply damaged with this case.
I maintain that the only real counter to the reform movement and its fellow-travelling policies is smart, strong, labor action via (re)invigorated unions. The Friedrichs win will make the possibility of that even more remote than it is now. Opt out is not our savior. Courts and judges and lawyers are not our saviors. Only we are our saviors.
I recall a line from Orwell here: “If there is hope, it lies in the proles.” What he was after there was that only those bodily effected (the proletariat) have the real power to initiate and bring change. If there is hope for us, it lies with us…..and there really is no us, historically, without our unions. Any other thought on that is ahistorical. We must be our own saviors.
When the Friedrichs win happens there will be a lot of noise from so many quarters. When that occurs, and the verbiage begins to fly, let us be clear and understand one thing:
The death-blow to our unions was brought to us by decades of unsophisticated, sloppy, lazy, accomodationist, deeply philosophically vacant, cowardly union leadership that allowed a tidal wave of anti-teacher, anti-labor, anti-union narrative, ideas, and policy to build to such ever-greater heights in our society that it became easy for a supreme court to deal the final blow. The war for public education and unionized teachers happened without the union leadership even realizing it was going on.
And we allowed that leadership to exist.
I generally agree with what you’ve said here. At a recent California Teachers Association, I attended a session run by some jejune union staff who could have been TFA-ers: bright recent grads who had had little or no public school teaching experience. It was these ill-prepared kids who were trying to hatch plans for counteracting the corporate reform juggernaut and revitalizing the union, yet they had no wisdom. In fact I suspected that, in their hearts, they shared some of the contempt for older veteran teachers that is so prevalent in our society. The whole conference was focused on countering the effects of Friedrichs (which CTA anticipates losing). These jejune kids were proposing a strategy for seducing millennials to stay in the union. The plan seemed half-baked to me. They pointed to some poll that showed that millennials liked the idea of pitching in for charitable causes, so they had the attendees brainstorm ways the local unions could hook up with charitable causes –something like that. It seemed pretty far-fetched to me. What I wished they had done was arm us with sharp, pithy arguments for the value of unions and against the Friedrichs’ lawyers’ arguments. I don’t think beating around the bush is going to do it. It was quite discouraging. But was I, or any other teacher in that room, going to step into the breach? No. I’m too tied down by my teaching duties (and probably no good at hatching battle plans anyway), and few of the others in the room seemed more informed than I about the threats facing us. They weren’t prepared either. I would seriously consider taking an unpaid sabbatical to help concoct the simplified, easily-digestible arguments we need to fight the fight, but with unions and tenure now endangered, prudence dictates that I make hay while the sun shines: I won’t sacrifice a year’s income if I could end up with zero income in a few years. An expensive teacher, no matter how good, will be an endangered teacher. The thinkers and planners on the other side don’ t have to face this hard choice: the billionaires will take care of them while they do the intellectual work needed to win.
Reblogged this on Crazy Normal – the Classroom Exposé and commented:
This is why workers in the United States NEED labor unions: “If labor’s voice is stilled, only the rich will have political power.”
I think school districts will go bonkers if unions now tell them they no longer represent non-Union teachers and refuse to negotiate for them. I think unions should tell the districts they are only negotiating for their members and the schools are free to do whatever they want with the non-Union people. Unions can also benefit mangement. Can you imagine a school negotiating with each individual teacher.
I can guarantee you, Holley, that there won’t be any “negotiating with each individual teacher”. It’ll be here take this offer or leave it. And you can bet that offer will be quite a bit less substantial than what the “union” will negotiate.
Holley,
Districts being put in a position to negotiate individually with teachers outside of union negotiations is precisely the wet dream of school districts.
It’s the wet dream of all management. That we are forgetting that is proof of our need to reinvigorate a labor consciousness. We are fast getting to the point where there will be no collective memory and experience in labor. This is very dangerous.
Most specifically, teachers unions becoming as physically broken as the Friedrichs case will make them will allow district management to simply produce a take it or leave it payscale, much closer to Walmart’s payscales than last years teacher’s contract, and that will be that.
Now, you may be having the thought that “oh, districts will want to retain good teachers so they will have to pay them well!” That airy notion fails on two points: 1) it assumes districts are interested in “good teachers.” They roundly are not. They are interested in the best teachers AT THE LOWEST PRICE. And don’t think that that won’t be something heavily marketed to district taxpayers. 2) it also assumes that teachers, whether dumb young ones or weathered mid-career types, have the ability to walk away. I promise you most do not. Teaching as a career is a cul de sac….we bullshit ourselves about how our skills as teachers could be soooo useful elsewhere, but the fact is, 5, 10, 25 years in the classroom counts for nothing in other fields. You are fit for Walmart greeter. And the young kids coming out of school who want to be teachers generally will have nowhere else to go except retail hell, so they’ll take the $20k a year teacher job and watch “Dead Poets Society” a few more times.
So yeah, it’s a wet dream for school management and at some point….Im hoping soon…. we can take our heads out of our asses and get honest about this stuff.
Hi Holley:
You are naive about the power of dictator (= greedy employer). Without union, employer will NOT ONLY order you to take it or leave it, but also all employers are controlled by ONE power which can make your life and all your family members miserable.
Example: you are journalist for NYT, your family members work in banking business, radio and television…Could you imagine that NYT orders you to write an IMMORAL article that you are against? Yes, you will do it or lose your job PLUS your family members’ jobs are affected because the big corporate owns all banks, radio station, and television channels where your family members work for.
This is why judges, union organisations need to be aware of the dictatorship from the GREEDY POWER. Without the true democratic power from union of workers, all become slaves. People lives are meaningless or just numbers to produce PROFIT for dictators.
Look at China. This is the best example for westerners to think and reflect about the difference between democracy and dictatorship.
HOW MANY Americans like Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg will buy houses in China VERSUS many rich Chinese families are buying and bought many real estates in USA and Canada? Back2basic
I don’t understand why a company can enter into a contract to be the exclusive provider of specified services to another company but somehow it becomes an issue when a union does the same thing. This seems like undue interference with the freedom of contracts.
I think its best to only work on processing the fact that Friedrichs will likely win and what that means. Not here, not anywhere, are yours or any of our legitimate philosophical rebukes to Friedrichs or the anti-union forces of our country going to make any difference whatever. That job has to be done at a loud volume, in a sustained and smart way, and very publicly. It was and remains one of the primary DUTIES of our unions. That they have grossly failed at that in no way negates the fact that it remains their province and duty.
Just like in negotiating salaries, the individual voice has no real leverage, whereas the power of the unionized voice is the only thing that enables real results.
We are in a very unfortunate position.
I agree.
A few gut reactions:
1) If teachers’ unions had been really fighting this reform movement, they would have the backing of the teachers. For the past 16 years, the AFT, UFT, and NEA have been in bed with the reform movement.
2) This division within teachers is EXACTLY music to reformers’ ears. Divide and conquer all the way.
3) This will set a precedent for ALL unions.
4) Maybe this means that employees not paying union dues will get NO services whatsoever from the union and they will be left on their own to negotiate.
5) Maybe this will also mean that unions will become more democratically structured so that members can remove leaders far more readily and easily when they do not make real, tenacious attempts to act in their constituents’ interests. I would love to see Randi Weingarten ousted from her position and worse.
This court decision is a death knell for us teachers, but with death comes opportunity for rebirth and evaluation, and therein can lie real, substantial and effective change . . . .
Many times, the patient has to get a lot worse before he changes his lifestyle and gets better . . .
It will be interesting to see how police and fire unions react. Normally police are exempted from union busting actions by conservatives. The conservative unpopular governing approach needs police for protection and muscle. In Ohio, the Republicans went after public safety unions as well which helped cause the downfall of senate bill 5. Basically, teachers in Ohio funded the SB5 recall while firefighters and police were the face of the opposition. People could care less about educating kids, but stir up fear of crime and everyone listens. The Friedrich case clearly is targeting teachers, but will police and fire be collateral damage? Or will SCOTUS twist themselves into knots to give public safety immunity?
I also read an article saying this case may extend to any organization’s fees that deal with speech under the First Amendment? It suggested Bar association fees are possibly invalidated? Any legal experts know if this is a possibility? Would a firefighter who asks for a raise and promotion be in violation of the Constitution? At what point are organizations dues considered speech under the First Amendment? Are taxes now voluntary since they are used to fund political activities? It seems Friedrich undermines public good and reinforces free riders in many more areas than just targeting teachers.
I am curious how many small businesses and contractors are going to go out of business as teacher, doctor, nurses and others stop buying consumer goods and houses? The reason for wages as redistribution of wealth seems obvious and superior to social programs and crime.
Unions have set parameters for wage scales for union and non-union workers. When everyone earns minimum wage, who will shop at the walmarts or on-line? Some small manufacturers began worrying about this several years ago. They may have gone out of business shortly after when the recession hit and the taxpayers had to bail out corporations to prevent a depression.
Will there be only hedge funders left to bail out the corporations when they sink again?Are not depressions a part of a real free-market economy?
I realize I may not have a sophisticated take on economics, but I can read history.
Communist military leaders in China, Russia are happy to see American capitalism are crumbling due to the corporate greed.
Communist dictatorship successfully uses its citizens cheap labor to lure westerner corporate greed to open manufactures in their countries so that they can learn and steal technological ideas easily PLUS improves its economy, and at the same time communists can weaken American economy strength.
We can wait and see that those corporate, who move their assets to oversea and outsource their works to foreigners, will face the reality sooner or later. We will face to the worst WW III where all countries small and big, savage and civilized, communist and capitalist, all have nuclear weapons.
Regardless being religious or atheist, all IN-humane, and selfish attitude will self-destroy lives on earth. The majority bloggers in this forum are in the age of 60+, 70 and 80. Yes, we are near to 6 feet and under. Those 30 +, 40 + and 50 + will suffer the consequence of their selfishness. Back2basic