Harold Meyerson, editor of the American Prospect, notes that the Supreme Court ruled unanimously when they last considered public sector unions. In the Abood case in 1977, they ruled that unions could not charge members to pay for their political activities, but that they could require members and non-members to pay for collective bargaining that improved their pay, working conditions, pensions, etc. Even the conservative members of the High Court agreed that it was legal and fair to expect even non-members to contribute to the cost of labor unions that advocate for them.
What changed from 1977 to 2016? The Supreme Court now has judges appointed by Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush. That’s one thing but not the only difference.
Meyerson writes:
When the Court held oral arguments on Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, a case that could overturn Abood, the five conservative justices made fairly clear that they were inclined to scrap their predecessors’ handiwork. Whatever faint hopes the labor movement had entertained that it might retain the support of Antonin Scalia, who’d upheld the judgment of Abood in previous opinions, were made fainter still by Scalia’s comments apparently embracing the argument that collective bargaining with government agencies is inherently political, thereby absolving non-members from having to pay any union dues at all.
What’s changed is the conservative justices’ assessment of unions—reflecting, I’d argue, the changed assessments of both business and Republican elites.
A look back at the opinions in Abood shows that the court was considering the same questions four decades ago that it is considering today. What’s changed is the conservative justices’ assessment of unions—reflecting, I’d argue, the changed assessments of both business and Republican elites.
What has changed is not just the composition of the Court, but the political climate. In today’s politics, unions do not command the political clout they had in 1977, and the Friedrichs case will reduce it even more.
Meyerson writes:
What’s changed since 1977, I suspect, is the regard in which conservatives now hold collective bargaining itself. In acknowledging that pure collective bargaining, if such a thing were even ascertainable, might justify fees from nonmembers, and simply by the act of concurring, Powell was bowing to the reality that collective bargaining was an established American institution that conservatives couldn’t frontally attack. Today, in the private sector, it’s a disestablished institution. Over the past 60 years, the rate of unionization in the private sector has fallen from roughly 40 percent to just 6.6 percent. In the public sector, it’s at 35 percent, but some key states that had long afforded collective-bargaining rights to public employees—most notably Wisconsin and Indiana—have effectively repealed them in recent years at the behest of Republican governors who are far more anti-union than Republican governors in the years when the Court ruled on Abood. Time was when not just the Rockefeller liberals but the Nixon centrists in the GOP chose not to attack unions (well, most unions); when Republican members of Congress from the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast had tens of thousands of union members in their districts, a number of whom voted Republican.
Meyerson sees the Friedrichs case as a double whammy, one that will diminish the power of the unions and the Democratic party. It will also weaken one of the key institutions that built the American middle class. If the unions get slammed by this case, income inequality and wealth inequality will only grow worse. And that’s bad not just for unions, but for our society.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
To quote the late George Carlin, “This country’s finished, has been for a long time.”
Writing to his brother in 1954, President Eisenhower wrote: “Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman for other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”
What Ike and most of the rest of nation forgot (or didn’t want to know about) was the long-term effect of “dark money” on our democracy. The Liberty League of the 1930s never really disappeared, and it is now running the country.
So who are really the “stupid” ones?
From Wikipedia: “The American Liberty League was an American political organization formed in 1934, primarily of wealthy business elites favoring a fascist state modeled on Mussolini’s Italy because they opposed the New Deal of Franklin D. Roosevelt. It was highly active for just two years. Following the landslide re-election of Roosevelt in 1936, it sharply reduced its activities and disbanded entirely in 1940.”
Perhaps all we need now is a landslide election of Bernie Sanders.
“So who are really the “stupid” ones?”
I wanna be a good student: We are?
Democrats are not blameless in the undermining of unions. Their support for charter schools, teacher evaluation by test results, merit pay, “alternative certification,” are all direct attacks on unions.
http://www.arthurcamins.com
In one of the Education Nation shows, Obama directly said that collective bargaining of teachers unions is “part of the problem”.
“Democrats are not blameless in the undermining of unions.”
Isn’t time to rename the democrats to something else, that reflect their viewpoints better? Because they have nothing to do with democracy, do they?
Of the three wings of the Republican party – social conservatives, southern strategy blue collar, and elite business interests, guess which one bought the SCOTUS. Perhaps the corruption of the political system is deeper than we see.
I bet it will be a one-two punch.
Every state that goes after public sector labor rights then goes after private sector labor rights. The Supreme Court and the people who are bankrolling this won’t be any different.
True. Then NLRB, anti-discrimination laws, child labor laws, OSHA, EPA. The GOP is rubbing their hands with glee. How can a party so unpopular control nearly all of government, media, and business? Approval rating of Congress are near single digits.
It’s all part of the same story. Class warfare. Time for a revolution. It’s not hopeless.
But it will take work. And large numbets of people voting.
Who says justice is blind? It always considers color, cash and clout!
I forgot another “C” connections.
Clarence Thomas’ entire career on the bench is one big middle finger to the left for what they put him through during his confirmation hearings. I heard him say that he doesn’t even listen to oral arguments, that his mind is always made up by then.
I saw the President dropped a single, weak sentence into his State of Union address on labor rights.
I thought DC was embarking on a project to help “working families”? When do you think they’ll get around to doing that? At this point it looks like they’re running out the clock, quite frankly, and then the next batch can again promise the same things.
They better hurry. “Working families” aren’t doing so hot.
… and a strong plug for TPP
I suspect the nails aren’t in the coffin yet if a strong enough presence is seen outside the courthouse doors. That being said, the elites are buying their own puppets to stand there.
The Supreme Court does respond to pressure that the American people will lose faith in the court system with a blatantly political move and especially in light of Citizens United – where corporations are people and can commit employees to speech but unions formed by hundreds of thousands can’t compel those who benefit to pay their fair share which makes their compelled speech apparently and probably illegal.
Shame this court – make them feel just how little people will respect them for this decision which they have the leeway to choose either way based on which merits they personally choose to say most represent the law of the land.
Its part of a bigger plan.
Corporations are people.
You land will be taken if money can be made
Money is speach
The unions ( the people) have no speach.
Bow and submit to your CEO formally known as principal.
I love that part- how they made one decision that allowed virtually unlimited amounts of cash into the campaign system, and then quickly moved to limit the ability of labor unions to donate.
This is going to be a TAD lop-sided, I think. Expect a “public debate” that is limited to the views of wealthy people and business interests.
The most interesting piece that I read on the case discussed how drawing a dividing line between political vs. non-political spending has been pretty much impossible in practice for public sector unions.
For private sector, it’s pretty easy as negotiations are with an employer and lobbying is with the government. When the government *is* the employer, it becomes impossible to distinguish what is political and what is bargaining.
I doubt many here will buy it, but there’s a strong case to be made that public sector unions could be made more effective if the case is decided against them. It’s true that surveys show 30% might not pay union dues if given the option and that will be a huge financial blow. But, that will force unions to be more responsive to excellent teachers and those that really want to work to improve the profession instead of focusing on where they provide the most value, which is unfortunately to those teachers who are underperforming or in trouble. That may also cause different teachers to be interested in union leadership.
I think there’s some room for a shift in union leadership from job protections to enhancement of the profession. That in turn could turn the political part of the ed reform debate into something more cooperative and less prescriptive and confrontational.
Just sharing as the perspective of someone definitely on the reformer side, but not anti-union (though I don’t necessarily expect anyone here to believe that).
Your argument would be stronger if unions no longer had to negotiate for those who choose to not join the union. If their grievances, their working conditions, their salaries were solely their own individual contract with their employer, then freeloaders might think twice.
To say any public employee is restricted in negotiating with their employer by calling it political speech is itself denying free speech. The private/public distinction sets up a class of citizens, public workers, who now have less rights and unequal protection under the SCOTUS ruling. That seems a very dangerous precedent and a move backwards towards second class citizenship for some, full rights for others.
I have worked non-union jobs in all my careers, including teaching. Your assessment of the outcomes are not what I have experienced. American workers are seeing job security erode, job protections dissolve, and all the power in labor markets held by employers. Jobs are becoming Walmartized as low wage positions or Uberized with everyone scrambling on their own with no benefits.
You assume a meritocracy. Yes, sometimes excellent employees are rewarded. But more often than not, everyone in private sector jobs is paid pretty much the same, regardless of ability. Far too many relatives and cronies are promoted to the highest level of their incompetence. Age discrimination is widespread. Once you hit 35 or 40 in careers today, income begins to decline dramatically or you are fired from the job. American business does not want excellent workers, just cheap workers. That is why business refuses to pay higher wages and just accepts lower quality or shifts production overseas, sometimes importing H1bs here to displace Americans.
MathVale,
I don’t disagree with what you said about private sector unions. In the beginning though, you talked about restricting public employees from negotiating with their employer. I don’t think this is about restricting it, it’s just about not forcing all teachers to participate.
I certainly understand the “free ride” objection. Just expressing the other side of the coin.
John, we will have to see. By undermining the unions (be honest, that is really what is going on here), the conservative majority is forcing unions to represent those employees they do not want – the free riders. That is violating the speech of unions and other members. That is Heather Whitney’s argument here.
http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/18682/friedrichs-v-california-teachers-association-scotus-heather-whitney
The elimination of public unions by conservative government, and then just a handful, is clearly intended to limit the voice of labor and the Democratic party. Ohio GOP tried it, and voters rejected that idea. Yet the voice of Ohio’s voters will be ignored (restricted).
But the CIR argument is that ALL public sector union activity is political speech. So Friedrich can’t be forced to join in that speech. But that same activity is not political speech and may be freely practiced in private unions. By making the distinction, public sector union activity is scrutinized now by that the government and controlled.
It goes back to considering public sector workers as having less rights (or a different set of rights) then private sector. And here I thought there was equal protection for something as fundamental a right as speech. Why the distinction?
Again, it’s THE HUNGER GAMES.
How is it fair that unions should be forced to represent teachers that don’t pay any dues. If some teachers hate unions and don’t want to join the union, then they should not reap any of the benefits that the union wins and they should not get any help or representation from the union. But no, the freeloading scabs don’t want to pay any union dues but they want all the benefits of the union. These free loaders are despicable pigs, leeches and parasites.
Does this court have any respect for stare decisis (or know what it means, for that matter)?
I don’t. What does it mean? I know I can google it, but I’m into admitting my ignorance.
It has to do with respect given to precedent. Judges/courts should adhere to previous decisions unless there is compelling reason to overturn them.
This Supreme Court case is just part of the campaign to make teachers temporary workers, easy to fire for any reason, with differentiated pay in the manner of Douglas County CO. That scheme is now embedded as a feature of ESSA. This is to say that pay based on the grade level, subject, or perceived difficulty or shortages in applicants (e.g., STEM, special education), in addition to other performance measures (even if free of validity and reliability and relevance) can be used to warrant short term contracts with few if any degrees of freedom for teacher judgment.
This vision for the “education sector” is consistent with a general movement to privatize all public services. The unions have been co-opted in what looks to be a death blow from the Supreme Court by a sluggish response to the discontents of members together with an all too eager acceptance of money and ideas from billionaire foundations and their front groups claiming to support teachers and “progressive policies” while undermining public education and targeting teachers as greedy and incompetent.
The next attack on public education is well underway in the arena of teacher education where ESSA and Gates, in particular, are working in tandem to undermine the role of higher education in preparing teachers.
ESSA authorizes special “academies” for teacher preparation with fast tracks into jobs via district controlled residencies and courses, and statewide tests of content mastery, teaching skills, and other measures of ” fitness to teach.”
This initiative, shaped by McKinsey and Co., became part of Arne Duncan’s push for a market based “transformation” of teacher education, with an enlarged presence for the for-profit and online “providers” of teacher preparation. Those initiatives have migrated into ESSA.
Meanwhile Gates is using his sham operation known as the National Center for Teacher Quality (NCTQ) to ” incubate” Teacher Transformation Centers and scale up his preferred ideas about education. These will infect the next generation of teachers with the idea that Doug Lemov is the paradigm for best practices, along with credentials from Relay Graduate School of Education (where disdain for scholars in education is the norm).
NCTQ is an ideologically driven non-profit operating as if it is the only source of expertise about the proper education of teachers, the proper framework for controlling the teacher workforce, and so on.
The latest publication from NCTQ is “Learning about Learning” (2016), another exmple of the stack rating schemes that Gates favors for evaluating “quality,” in this case, the content of texts used in teacher education. This tome (with ten online appendices) offers a recipe for proper instruction of all subjects and all grade levels in which repeated practice with frequent tests are honored. These are two of six scientifically- proven best practices that serve as criteria for rating texts and courses. As usual, any other ideas about paths to learning through teaching are cause for alarm and a lower rating for a teacher preparation program as well as textbook publishers.
In the works is a Gates -funded Inspectorate” intended to preempt every other accreditation system and with faculty and scholars in education having only a token role in judging programs. So, if you like those phoney ratings of teacher education programs in U.S. News and World Report, based on criteria in the Gates funded “Teacher Prep Review” the newly scaled up version is intended to become the norm for every state.
(Actually, Teacher Prep Review has more than one foundation supporting it, also NCTQ, but there is no doubt that the instigator and leader of these stack ratings, as well as those in EdWeek called ” Quality Counts” are led by the Gates Foundation staff.)
money, money money…
Completely agree with Myersons’ assessment based on:
Scalia’s comments apparently embracing the argument that collective bargaining with government agencies is inherently political, thereby absolving non-members from having to pay any union dues at all.
Unions are paying the price of playing in the political arena from virtually one point of view.
Like Jim Harbargh said “you reap what you sew.”
The teacher unions didn’t do anything wrong, there’s a war against unions in this country. If the teacher unions had never “played” in the political arena, they would still be under attack, there would still be the Friedrich’s case. If the teacher unions had shut up, been good little boys and girls, been polite and respectful to their superiors, the war against unions would continue unabated. Wow, the billionaire reformers can play in the political arena but teacher unions are forbidden from lobbying just because!!!??? Really? Who made that law? The teacher unions are cursed if they do and damned if they don’t.
Jim,
Do you think public employees should have less rights than private employees, i.e. restricted speech by employment?
Does your view extend to taxation? In other words, SCOTUS rules money is speech. If I disagree with some aspect of government, can I refuse to pay taxes?
Is being a free rider now legal? Can I legally claim the benefits of an organization without paying dues?
Does the argument against political speech by employees extend to defense contractors, lawyers, doctors, and anybody that deals with the federal or state governments?
If a police officer union negotiates for safer vests or a nurse blows the whistle on dangerous practices at state facilities, is this now political speech and prohibited?
I find it odd that Scalia and the conservatives are so quick to overturn a precedent from only 1977. To paraphrase Ted Cruz, the Constitution didn’t change, just the numbers. In this case those numbers are dollar figures.
Joe,
Your loyalty is admirable.
how many times has a Democratically controlled Congress helped teachers?
Did they strengthen our rights when they had the chance?
Did they pass or repeal NCLB?
You are correct, the Public Service Unions didn’t do anything “wrong” but they did play the game and some times you lose and must endure the consequences.
PSU’s should be careful with who they support and not become blind obedient extensions of ANY political party.
The problem is not scabs, it’s the closed shop mentality. Maybe the PSU’s should have considered why these members have rebelled against “forced participation” in an organization. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to negotiate their own contracts?
Are unions afraid of independent contractors? It’s great when you don’t have to compete.
If the SC rules against agency fee collection will you advocate expelling those teachers? Do the PSU’s have exclusive rights to control the work force? Are the PSU’s afraid of the competition?
PSU’s will still remain the best way to maintain a viable work force, they’ll just have to compete with independents and change the way they bargain.
So which Party kept us from getting to this point? So which Party do the PSU’s continue to support and fund?
“how many times has a Democratically controlled Congress helped teachers?”
There hasn’t been “Democratically controlled Congress”. We just wish.
“Why shouldn’t they be allowed to negotiate their own contracts?”
Because without collective bargaining, the employer always has vastly superior power – that’s why unions were formed in the first place. And allowing people to negotiate their own contracts would destroy the union. The first several people to opt out of the union would get offered some fabulous package of wages and benefits – not because they’re in any way better, smarter, faster, etc. than their co-workers (in other words, not on their own merit), but because it’s in the employer’s best interest to do so. Once the employer has enticed enough people to leave the union to crush it, what do you think are the chances for those left behind who haven’t already negotiated their own contracts? And how solid do you think those negotiated contracts will be in the absence of the union? What recourse do those employees have if the employer reneges?
Mathvale,
The issue is not collective bargaining. That’s what PSU’s think they’ll lose.
The issue is “can you force people to join an organization and prohibit them from employment if they don’t”
From there inception, unions gained power and influence because companies (industry) needed the stable work force that a Union would provide (once their stopped fighting them.)
This fight is not about School Systems fighting Unions, it’s about unions losing touch with their members.
Dienne,
Your interpretation of what is supposed to happen by past practice is amazing.
I’m curious about your contention: “…allowing people to negotiate their own contracts would destroy the union. The first several people to opt out of the union would get offered some fabulous package of wages and benefits…”
So they don’t pay us through collective bargain a fair wage now, the public schools (see Washington) are not being fully funded, and so where are these fabulous packages coming from?
The unions will weather this storm, what they need to do re-focus their loyalty to the needs of the members, not the open pockets of the politicians, which by the way have become a single party focus.
Is anyone in the CA Democratic Party fighting Vegara?
What Party is Cuomo?
Jim, nice dodge of my questions. The issue (be honest) is about eliminating the voice of labor in politics, particularly teachers – a group that seems to particularly draw the ire and scorn of conservatives. The added bonus to Republicans is that a major funding source of Democrats, teachers unions, is crippled or destroyed. Republicans can no longer win popular votes and must survive through gerrymandering , voter suppression, and favorable rulings from SCOTUS.
I hope SCOTUS asks the hard question in deliberating this case. But from what I’ve seen, the Roberts Court appears incoherent and dysfunctional.
So Diane posted this interview of Mrs Friedrich from yesterday.
Here’s a quote directly from her mouth:
“When I was a young teacher, there was a voucher initiative and they were coming in telling us how we had to be boots on the ground against the vouchers, knock on doors, phone bank, all of that. And I had done my research and I said, ‘Well gosh, I can’t do that, I’m for vouchers. I think parents should have a right to choose and kids should have options.’
They called me a radical right-winger, right there in front of all my friends. That whole year I was really ostracized. The union reps were the ones that were mean to me. The other teachers just don’t say anything because they’re afraid. I don’t know how they felt.”
So she disagreed with the Union’s position and this is the result.
The Supreme Court Justices certainly need to be reminded that the mainstream Christian, Jewish,and other churches have taken strong official stances in support of union organizing and collective bargaining, as shown in the following official church statements and position papers:
“The [Catholic] Church fully supports the right of workers to form unions or other associations to secure their rights to fair wages and working conditions. This is a specific application of the more general right to associate [this makes unionizing a constitutional right under the First Amendment right of freedom to form associations]. No one may deny the right to organize without attacking human dignity itself. Therefore, we firmly oppose organized efforts — such as those regrettably seen in this country — to break existing unions or prevent workers from organizing.”
UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS, Pastoral Letter “Economic Justice for All,” 1986
“Governments, for reasons of economic utility, often limit the freedom or the negotiating capacity of labor unions. The repeated calls issued within the Church’s social doctrine, beginning with Rerum Novarum, for the promotion of workers’ associations that can defend their rights must therefore be honored today even more than in the past.”
POPE BENEDICT XVI, “Caritas in Veritate,” 2009
“We reaffirm our position that workers have the right to organize by a free and democratic vote of the workers involved.”
AMERICAN BAPTIST CHURCHES in the U.S.A. Resolution, 1981
“Jewish leaders, along with our Catholic and Protestant counterparts, have always supported the labor movement and the rights of employees to form unions for the purpose of engaging in collective bargaining and attaining fairness in the workplace. We believe that the permanent replacement of striking workers upsets the balance of power needed for collective bargaining, destroys the dignity of working people and undermines the democratic values of this nation.”
CENTRAL CONFERENCE OF AMERICAN RABBIS, Preamble to the Workplace Fairness Resolution, adopted at the 104th Annual Convention, June 1993
“We believe in the right of laboring men to organize for protection against unjust conditions and to secure a more adequate share of the fruits of the toil.”
DISCIPLES OF CHRIST, Resolution on the Church and Labor, 1938
“Free collective bargaining has proved its values in our free society whenever the parties engaged in collective bargaining have acted in good faith to reach equitable and moral solutions of problems dealing with wages and working conditions.”
CHRISTIAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH,Discipline doctrine, adopted 1982
“The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America commits itself to advocacy with corporations, businesses, congregations and church-related institutions to protect the rights of workers, support the collective bargaining process, and protect the right to strike.”
EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH IN AMERICA, Resolution adopted at Churchwide Assembly, 1991
“Justice demands that social institutions guarantee all persons the opportunity to participate actively in economic decision making that affects them. All workers — including undocumented, migrant and farm workers — have the right to choose to organize for the purposes of collective bargaining.”
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH U.S.A, “Principles of Vocation and Work,” adopted at General Assembly, 1995
“The Unitarian Universalist Association urges its member congregations and individual Unitarian Universalists in the United States… to work specifically in favor of mechanisms such as: reform of labor legislation and employment standards to provide greater protection for workers, including the right to organize and bargain collectively, protection from unsafe working conditions and protections from unjust dismissal.”
UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST ASSOCIATION OF CONGREGATIONS, adopted at General Assembly, 1997
“The 21st General Synod reaffirms the heritage of the United Church of Christ as an advocate for democratic, participatory and inclusive economic policies in both public and private sectors, including … the responsibility of workers to organize unions for collective bargaining with employers regarding wages, benefits and working conditions, and to participate in efforts further to democratize, reform and expand the labor movement domestically and abroad.”
UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST, “Resolution Affirming Democratic Principles in an Emerging Global Economy,” adopted at 21st General Synod, 1997
Yes, but what is the Pontiff’s (er, I mean, God’s) position on public employee unions specifically? Also, who cares?
Except that in the Archdiocese of San Francisco, the Catholic (i.e. neo-charter) School system has consistently discouraged the formation or unionization of it’s teachers.
I wonder how many teachers voted for leaders that appointed these conservative Judges? Again, teachers have to be more aware and vote their interests.
“A day after Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan saw a dead mouse on the floor of a classroom during a school visit, he has called for a citywide inspection of all public schools.”
Nothing would have happened without the teachers doing the sick out. They’ve probably been ignored for years.
Sotomayor asked plaintiffs’ counsel an interesting question at the argument: Could a state permissibly pay a public employee union’s “agency fees” directly, with revenue raised by state taxes, thereby avoiding the “coerced political speech” problem? It seems to me the answer is yes, and that the distinction between Sotomayor’s hypothetical and the challenged practice of levying agency fees on employees is largely formalistic. It’s sort of a bizarro version of the school choice cases in the early 2000s: If the state hands money directly to the religious schools, it’s an Establishment Clause violation. If the state hands the money to the parents, who then hand it to the religious schools, it’s an exercise of individual choice and therefore kosher.
We need to remember the comment that those who forget their history are destined to repeat it. This Union bashing and busting has all the earmarks of an America reverting to the days of the late 18th and early 20th centuries when workers were trying to unionize to get better pay, etc and to the days in the mid 20th century when teachers were trying to get those same rights as well. I may not have always agreed with unions, but I gladly paid my dues because their negotiating had a positive affect on my welfare and job security and served my time on negotiation teams as well.
Retired teacher Sue in RI.
A salute to bygone times