The Friedrichs case before the U.S.Supreme Court will decide whether teachers can be “forced” to pay dues to unions that bargain on their behalf. The case is not about paying for unions’ political advocacy; no one has to. Those who don’t want to get a refund. The case is about paying for collective bargaining for salaries, pensions, and working conditions. If Friedrich wins, teachers can refuse to join or pay dues but enjoy the benefits that unions win. Those are called “free riders.” They hitch a ride without sharing the cost. They are also free-loaders.
Steven Singer wrote an apt fable about Friedrichs. He also includes some excellent cartoons.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
What the Supreme Court is doing to labor unions is nothing more than censoring the working public while offering more freedom to billionaire oligarchs to control the messages they want the people to hear so they can fool them into supporting their own agendas that will increase the wealth and power of the wealthy and powerful.
Excellent article on whether Scalia will turn rogue…don’t hold your breath.
Public Sector Unions Pin Hopes on Antonin Scalia Going Rogue
By Bill Blum – The conservative Supreme Court justice holds the key to their fate in a case with blockbuster potential.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/public_sector_unions_pin_hopes_on_scalia_going_rogue_20160112/
In a message dated 1/13/2016 10:17:55 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
The laser-like focus on eradicating labor unions is amazing. There are so few working people with any bargaining power left! They hardly pose this enormous threat to wealthy people- the vast majority of people have little or no legal protections or negotiated contract rights at work. It always seems like over-kill to me- like they don’t want anyone to get any ideas about organizing or collective action. Banish the mere THOUGHT that it would be possible.
The evidence is strong that autocratic psycho billionaire oligarchs can’t stand anyone disagreeing or saying no to them—anyone. It is arguable that if we had no U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights—I’m sure those documents are another one of their targets—they would literally be crushing anyone who dared to speak out in a public forum against their agendas.
I remember reading that the CEO of GE once said he enjoyed doing business in China with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) because they operated the same as a corporation, and he made it clear he didn’t enjoy doing business in a democracy like India or the U.S.—too many restrictions deigned to protect consumers that stops private sector corporations from doing anything they want to make more money even if it kills some of its customers.
I believe, Lloyd, that was Immelt sho is now Obama’s Chief of Staff and his prime advisor.
The Unholy Marriage Of GE And President Obama At The …
http://www.forbes.com/…/the-unholy-marriage-of-ge-and-president-oba...
Forbes
Apr 8, 2011 – The angry Left has been calling for President Obama to fire Jeffrey Immelt from his position as head of the President’s Council on Jobs and …
Obama’s “Jobs Czar,”GE’s CEO Jeff Immelt, Threatens to …
libertyblitzkrieg.com/…/crony-corporate-ceo-jeff-immelt-of-ge-threatens…
Jun 23, 2015 – Another year has come and gone, and it’s once again time to face the issue of a crony capitalist favorite: The Export Import Bank, also known as …
I always equate the effort to preserve the remaining unions as a Thermopylaen stand. The Greeks, outnumbered, battled the more powerful Persians. The warriors held their ground as long as they could before being betrayed by one of their own ,Ephialtes. (I did not see the movie).
As long as those few unions remain, the oligarchs cannot simply assume full control. Once the teachers fall, then there is very little standing in the way of a total collapse of the middle class and the hopes of democracy. That isn’t an exaggeration. The norm in history of societies is a few powerful and the rest living a subsistence living. It takes work and a conscious effort to support a middle class and preserve freedoms. It is ironic the Republicans who preach freedom will be the ones destroying it.
Agree with you Mathvale, Lloyd, and Chiara…I have been writing for some time on this issue (see my Vergara article early last year on CityWatchToday.com). With the advent of the Vergara case pushed by the California oligarchs, it was clear that the issue of tenure was secondary to the main goal of taking down the teachers’ unions. And now Broad has Deasy and Austin working for him full time to spread this cause both state and nationwide. Similar cases are popping up all over California, and across the country.
The cases of Harris v. Quinn, and others, build the stare decisis that SCOTUS will cite to find for the teachers in Friedrichs. Kennedy, too often the deciding vote with the Right Wing Four, was infuriated the other day when hearing testimony for CTA and against the plaintiffs. This was an extraordinary outburst and I fear, a forerunner of his vote.
With the fall of what many see as the weakest unions, those functioning to protect teachers, they will pursue the demise of the entire union movement. And it is not only possible, it is probable that the ruling class will succeed.
As an added issue, keep in mind the very early announcements by Lily and Randi, that their unions endorse Hillary for Prez…without input from the rank and file it seemed.
Are these union leaders working hand in glove with Broad/Walton & Co. to invest in Hillary who certainly is supported mainly by Wall Street (see her latest Goldman Sachs huge contributors)? What is their connection to the cases that are aimed at killing off their own unions? And what about their connections to having “company” unions instead of a free union movement?
The people who belong to unions now and are paying should be so thankful that they are getting respectable salaries, medical care, job protections and so much more. The same people who if friedrichs wins, decide to not pay their $55 paycheck to the union, and decide to save that money and go alone will be people not only known as scabs, free loaders or free riders,they will be considered sheep. I am saying this because anyone who actually takes away their union dues is a complete moron and playing right into the hands of reformers like the koch bros and bloomberg. Do not be a fool and act tough claiming your union does not do this or your union does not do that. If anyone actually takes away their union dues they will suffer and if the sheep come to roost all will suffer. So,this is about understanding what is going on and what people like bloomberg and the koch bros want you to do and that is to abandon your union. Think people think and play it smart for yourself and the rest of your colleagues. Any bloggers who knock this post will be the ones we need to look out for as they will become the sheep free loaders. Peace.
Don’f fall for the Kool Aid…indeed.
Here is another article on SCOTUS and the outlook for Friedrichs.
https://www.cir-usa.org/
The Center for Individual RightsHome
About CIR Cases Recent Case Activity
News Publications DonateFriedrichs v. California Teachers Association et al.JANUARY 12, 2016
FRIEDRICHS OPTIMISTIC AFTER ORAL ARGUMENTS
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments inFriedrichs v. CTA on Monday, January 11th. Rebecca’s attorney, Michael Carvin, faced the Solicitor General of California, the union attorney, and the Solicitor General from the Obama administration. Oral arguments lasted eighty minutes, with the time divided equally between the two sides. If the tenor of the questions is any indication, it appears that a majority of the justices seemed favorable to the argument put forth by Rebecca Friedrichs.
A majority of the justices focused their time and questions on the merits of the primary issue before the court: whether compelled union dues violate the first amendment. The other justices, however, spent a great deal of time discussing ways to avoid the merits of the primary issue. Several of the justices, for instance, suggested that even if Rebecca Friedrichs has the stronger legal argument, she should still lose her case because of the legal doctrine of stare decisis. That the Justices spent so much effort on this line of reasoning indicates they may have already conceded that Rebecca Friedrichs has the stronger arguments on the merits.
Generated by IJG JPEG LibraryWhile union members protested on the steps of the supreme court with signs that echoed the union talking points and insisted that compelled agency fees are not political speech, the union attorneys inside the court spoke out of the other side of their mouth. Contrary to the talking points the unions have promoted through the internet and protests, they have always conceded in their legal briefs and before the court that agency fees and collective bargaining are political.
At an event following oral arguments, attorney Michael Carvin hesitated to make a prediction about the case, but suggested the unions were at a loss to square their position with established constitutional principles.
While oral arguments are not always indicative of the way the court will decide, the level of skepticism that the Justices expressed at the union arguments makes us optimistic that Friedrichs v. CTA will be a victory for the First Amendment and a victory of public school teachers.
A decision is expected by June.
CIR is representing ten California teachers and the Christian Educators Association International in a landmark effort to re-establish the right of individual teachers and other public employees to decide for themselves whether to join and support a union. The suit claims state “agency shop” laws, which require public employees to pay union dues as a condition of employment, violate well-settled principles of freedom of speech and association. While many teachers support the union, others do not and the state cannot constitutionally compel an individual to join and financially support an organization with which he or she disagrees.
Collective Bargaining is Inherently political
Typically, California teacher union dues cost upwards of a $1,000 per year. Although California law allows teachers to opt-out of the thirty percent or so of their dues devoted to overt political lobbying, they may not opt out of the sixty to seventy percent of their dues the union determines is devoted to collective bargaining. Requiring teachers to pay these “agency fees” assumes that collective bargaining is non-political. But bargaining with local governments is inherently political. Whether the union is negotiating for specific class sizes or pressing a local government to spend tax dollars on teacher pensions rather than on building parks, the union’s negotiating positions embody political choices that are often controversial.
Political Opt-Out is Burdensome
To opt out of the thirty percent of their dues that even the union concedes is used for overtly political activities, teachers must must file for a refund each year according to a precise procedure that effectively discourages its use. As a result, many teachers contribute hundreds of dollars in dues each year to support political positions in a variety of areas having nothing to do with education and with which many of them disagree.
For example, the CTA spent over $211 million in political expenditures from 2000 through 2009. CTA’s largest single expenditure (over $26 million) was made to successfully oppose Proposition 38 on the November, 2000 ballot, which would have enacted a school-voucher system in California (and thereby increased the potential employment pool for teachers). CTA also spent over $50 million to oppose three ballot initiatives in 2005, including Proposition 74, which sought to make changes in the probationary period for California school teachers; Proposition 75, which sought to prohibit the use of public employee agency fees for political contributions without individual employees’ prior consent; and Proposition 76, concerning state spending and minimum school-funding requirements.
Case Speeds to Supreme Court
On June 30th, the Supreme Court granted CIR’s petition asking it to review the case. To date, over 20 amicus briefs have been filed in support of CIR’s efforts at the Supreme Court. The case likely will be heard in the fall of 2015, with a decision expected by June, 2016.
The speed with which the case moved through the lower courts reflected a deliberate litigation strategy. From the beginning, CIR argued that the lower courts do not have the authority to overturn existing Supreme Court precedent. As a result, we asked the trial court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to decide against our clients on the basis of the pleadings (without trial or oral argument) so as to send the case on to the Supreme Court as quickly as possible. The Supreme Court is the only forum that can vindicate the First Amendment rights of our clients and other teachers.
Case Status: Case pending before Supreme Court. Oral arguments scheduled for January 11, 2016.
This is a good piece with some suggestions about what our elected representatives could do to give working people more rights at work:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/01/14/if-scotus-whacks-the-unions-there-needs-to-be-a-plan-b/
They’ll be heading out soon to run for election and many of them claim to support labor rights and ALL of them claim to support “hardworking families” (whatever that means).
Ask them why they don’t take any concrete action in DC on wages or rights and protections at work. A single throwaway line in a State of the Union speech is not action.
It’s all about union busting not freedom of speech. These freeloaders or built-in scabs have every opportunity in the world to work at non union schools (charter schools, Private schools and religious schools). No one forces them to teach at unionized schools.
Saul Alinsky would be proud of the demonization of these teachers complaint.
Francisco Franco would be proud of the demonization of unions.
The issue is not about bargaining, the issue is about being forced to join an organization that uses your money to support political views and politicians you do not.
Yes, public service unions are being targeted by politicians. They are being targeted because while a large majority may agree with the union leaderships views and whom they say the Union supports, they use ALL of their resources to provide substantial support while not ALL of their members may agree. While the Union leadership may enjoy the power, they shouldn’t complain when they are challenged by those politicians they do not support who perceive their are using that power and claiming to represent a minority that does not agree with their decisions. The Leadership of the union speaks for the Leadership of the Union, not ALL of it’s constituents.
The conundrum for the PSU’s is how to separate partisan politics from collective bargaining.
These demonized teachers are using their First Amendment right to petition the government.
Telling these teachers to go somewhere else is the same as telling someone “we don’t serve your kind here.”
Calling them “free-loaders” because they are forced to pay money to support views they do not agree with is a radical perversion of representative government.
The unions should not pay for PAC’s, the members should contribute to the PAC’s of their choice.
BTW, I am an elected union representative and have and will continue to fight to protect the letter of our collective bargaining agreement. I’ve served on our bargaining committee advocate just and fair compensation, appropriate working conditions, and more freedom to do the job we are hired to do.
I do not contribute to the Union sponsored PAC’s because they not only do not support my political philosophy but in my opinion the Democratic Party who have taken money from PSU’s have not fulfilled their promises any better than Republicans when it comes to pension reform, VAM, Charter Schools, and mandatory testing.
Jim,
We have a homeowner’s association. Membership is voluntary. Right now participation is about 15%. Those that pay into the association fund the street lights, snow removal, entranceway landscaping, and representation with the city. While only 15% pay, the remaining 85% gain the same benefits. But under this scheme, the homeowner’s association is at the point where funding is insufficient. The association will soon collapse, and no one will receive the benefits. The impact to the neighborhood will be negative.
Many of the teacher-plaintiffs are retired or soon retiring with years of benefits and future benefits that were fought for and won through collective bargaining and sacrifice of others. That is hypocritical and selfish. They deserve to be called out.
This is not a matter of “choice”. With union membership at an all time low, it is difficult to find an industry that DOESN’T have non-union jobs. The teachers are free to find a non-union job, and one has to ask why the plaintiffs didn’t do that in the first place, since they knew the situation when applying. Denying teachers CHOOSING union representation is also denying free speech and the freedom to assemble. With so much technology, it is no longer difficult to set up an accounting system that separates funding for political activity from basic bargaining on job conditions.
It is judicial overreach to say all bargaining is political. That is a fig leaf for the fact the Republicans on SCOTUS simply want to eliminate unions. Saying it also applies to public section workers is to consider those workers second-class Americans, not worthy of Constitution protections. This is a disturbing, slippery slope.
There is so much wrong with this case, it is difficult to put into a single post. The Roberts Court will be known for destroying the public good and corrupting the political process. Teaching as a profession will cease to exist and become temp work at best. America rose with public schools, it will fall without them.
“…the issue is about being forced to join an organization that uses your money to support political views and politicians you do not.”
Reading comprehension issues? “The case is not about paying for unions’ political advocacy; no one has to. Those who don’t want to get a refund. The case is about paying for collective bargaining for salaries, pensions, and working conditions.”
The thing about labor unions is, they’re rigidly bound by an established set of laws, and a lot of those laws were written to protect business interests.
Once they succeed in eradicating labor unions they may not like what replaces them, and something WILL replace them, because working people have no influence or leverage in government so organizations like labor unions are their only option. It’s one of those “watch what you wish for, you might get it” deals. They may want the tame, toothless labor union model back when they see what replaces it 🙂
Yes, like pressure building in a tank, the labor unions were a relief valve. The explosion will come through, hopefully, the political process, though there are enough crazies in America that I fear for the stability of our society. Trump is a canary in the mine, and I agree with much of his followers’ frustration with inept leaders and income inequality. I just think his followers are picking the wrong person to correct it.
Another essential post from this blog. I was unaware of the Freidrich case.
My Dad understood the value and purpose of unions. “We’re all in this together”, he’d say to his Ironworker Union brothers, and to us kids. They suffered no fools and called people who worked against their union “scabs”. Indelicate, yes. But the stakes were high. People died for the right to decent pay, a retirement, some health benefits for their kids,and an 8 hour day. It should not be undone.
Thanks for reminding me of that.
“We examine whether working conditions in charter schools and traditional public schools lead to different levels of job satisfaction among teachers. We distinguish among charter schools managed by for-profit education management organizations (EMOs) and non-profit charter management organizations (CMOs) and stand-alone charter schools. We investigate our research question using data from the School and Staffing Survey. We find that teachers in charter schools are less satisfied with their jobs than teachers in traditional public schools. We also find that teachers in EMO-managed schools appear less satisfied than those in stand-alone charter schools. Our analyses suggest that lower salaries and limited union memberships help drive these lower levels of satisfaction, particularly among stand-alone charter schools and charter schools managed by EMOs.”
Charter teachers make about 15k less a year than public school teachers do in Ohio, according to published reports (which would be a guess, because charters report very little in Ohio).
It’s an odd way to value work, paying people less.
It must be VERY innovative and I’m more of a “traditionalist” so it may be beyond my limited capacity to imagine how 15k less a year is actually beneficial to them.
http://epx.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/01/09/0895904815625281.abstract?papetoc
The conservative SCOTUS majority is on a roll!
The citizens should have ridden them out on a rail after their ridiculous and destructive Citizens United decision! There was a little noise made about it but nothing was done.
With their oligarch backing the SCOTUS is going after Unions, I sure as Unions are weakened and more States have pension debts that Pension payments will be next!
WE as a collective have to make a stand or WE will soon be kneeling in front of the oligarch!
Thank you, Diane, for writing about my article. This whole situation is so absurd. It’s like something out of Kafka or Monty Python. Yet the U.S. Supreme Court is taking it seriously and may even rule in Friedrichs’ favor! We live in strange times.
So corporations are people, and people are just the 47 percent. I am counting on selling my property to tech industry types when the oligarchs find a way to steal my pension.
Singer, here’s a better parable for you.
Amanda is graduating from college this year with her education degree. She’s apprehensive about actually getting a job and being alone in a classroom but really enjoyed her student teaching experience. She interviews with several districts and is fortunate to get not one, but two offers.
Amanda’s first year is tough. She loves the kids but it takes some adjustment learning to control the more disruptive kids and not getting off track during her lessons. But at the end of the year, Amanda knows she enjoys teaching and is looking forward to her second year as a “veteran” teacher.
Amanda’s second and third years are much more efficient. She has learned some excellent class management techniques and now she can work on perfecting, as opposed to creating, her lesson plans. And boy does it show. By the end of the third year, her principal informs Amanda that she has among the highest value-added metrics in the school (median of about 90% among teachers). Her kids also love her and parents have sent many notes to the principal about their children’s excellent teacher.
During her performance review, Amanda asks about opportunities for advancement as a teacher. She notes that she is already among the most effective teachers by every discernible metric. Her principal informs her that due to Amanda’s union and it’s collective bargaining, Amanda will only ever be paid based on her age. She can’t get more money by generating outstanding student growth. She earns about half the salary that many 50+ yr-olds in the district earn, a significant portion of whom have completely checked out. This is confirmed by parents asking for their students to be transferred to Amanda’s class.
Amanda also sees new students each year that are completely unprepared for her class. There are 2 teachers specifically in the grade immediately preceding Amanda’s whose students must always be remediated before Amanda can teach them grade-level content. But Amanda has heard that every single teacher received an effective evaluation in the school because….. well all teachers think they are great. And it’s widely known that teachers write their own evaluation so what teacher in their right mind would evaluate themselves poorly even if their students learn nothing?
Fortunately, Amanda hears of a few districts who promote based on competence rather than union seniority. She gathers more information and decides after her fourth year to make the jump since it would only hurt her to wait. There is some adjustment the first year but the new administration quickly identifies Amanda’s ability to connect with her students. She again gets high growth scores and receives promotions in 3 of her first 4 years. After just 8 years of teaching experience (4 in each district), Amanda is now among the top 25% of teachers in terms of pay in her district. She is also relied upon by the district for setting the direction of educational policy and Amanda is even asked to review the effectiveness of other teachers including ones twice her age.
None of this is possible in a union-controlled quagmire to which so many students, parents and teachers are currently sentenced.
“Her principal informs her that due to Amanda’s union and it’s collective bargaining, Amanda will only ever be paid based on her age. She can’t get more money by generating outstanding student growth … None of this is possible in a union-controlled quagmire to which so many students, parents and teachers are currently sentenced.”
This is just more of the propaganda crap dished out by the corporate, public education, hate labor unions, demolition derby funded by labor union hating autocratic billionaire oligarchs.
The fact is that if the teachers’ local labor union are destroyed, then teachers have no voice, no support, no job protection and even this fictional Amanda, no matter how great of a teacher she is, can be fired without cause at any moment. For instance, protesting abusive, high stakes tests that cause children to lose sleep, break down and cry, vomit, etc.
In addition, your fantasy of a perfect world where a young teacher starting out improves each year and the children and parents love her so much that they just fall over each other to cooperate so their learning skyrockets is nothing but a fantasy for the vast majority of teachers. The only way this would work is if 100% of the children and their parents were perfect and cooperated with her 100% of the time. With 30 years of teaching experience, I can testify that this doesn’t even happen in AP and Honors classes.
The truth is that the stress and challenges never let up and teacher turnover rate, burnout and PTSD is higher among teachers who work in schools with high rates of children that live in poverty.
Take away the teachers’ labor unions, and fantasy teachers like this Amanda will see her annual earnings drop by more than $10,000, the hours she has to work will increase, she will be required to do more, she will be required to teach to a script and implement cruel behavior policies, and she will not be allowed to innovate on her own. That’s why the teacher turn over rate is much higher in corporeal Charter schools like Eva Moskowitze’s Success Academies and that other KIPP corporate charter chain.
Here’s data from a primary sources to support my allegations:
A repeated cross section of respondent data from 1996 to 2012 is pooled to estimate pay gaps for four teacher groups: unionized public sector teachers, unionized private sector teachers, nonunionized public sector teachers, and nonunionized private sector teachers. Thus, we compare teacher pay relative to that of comparable workers and among the four teacher groups. Main results from our regression-based analyses reveal that nonunionized teachers in the private sector have the largest pay gap (–32.1 percent), and unionized public sector teachers have the smallest pay gap of the four teacher groups, but still a negative one (–13.2 percent), relative to comparable nonteacher workers. The relative teacher pay gaps are larger for male teachers than for female teachers.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2014/article/teacher-staffing-and-pay-differences.htm
“Charter teachers are 40% more likely to leave and 52% more likely to exit (the profession).”
Click to access brief_ics_Attrition_Aug10_0.pdf
“The teachers and students are literally in school for 11 hours a day. I saw numerous teachers experience nervous breakdowns from extreme pressure and harassment of administration…. There was a 50 percent turnover for staff each year. (Guerrieri, 2012) >Found on page 257<
https://books.google.com/books?id=FJ_dBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA256&lpg=PA256&dq=teacher+turnover+rates+compared+between+public+schools+and+corporate+charters&source=bl&ots=1M0mAeJWgW&sig=l_JKBpDLlZ2vG-a1hMCXNGlZAcE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjkvejc2a7KAhVC1GMKHdT2AnkQ6AEISzAG#v=onepage&q=teacher%20turnover%20rates%20compared%20between%20public%20schools%20and%20corporate%20charters&f=false