Teachers' Unions Survive Another Attack

Teachers and our unions in California, along with the rest of organized labor dodged a bullet (maybe a nuclear missile is a more appropriate metaphor) in yesterday's split decision in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association.  But I would caution against getting too happy about it or viewing the decision as a victory for organized labor on this issue.  

For one thing, the ruling will not stop anti-union cases that are already in the pipeline or the filing of new cases that aren't in the courts yet. Because of the split decision, no new precedents have been set, so labor remains just as legally vulnerable as it was before. Also, labor's enemies have been racking up major victories at the state level. 26 states are now right to work, and it's not outside the realm of possibility that public sector unions could see their collective bargaining rights curtailed further in more states.

(see below)

What now? "The plaintiffs in the case, led by the Center for Individual Rights, a conservative nonprofit, will file a motion for rehearing and pray that a Republican gets elected president in November."

(from Politico’s Morning Report)

Leaders of major public sector unions, meanwhile, say the case created a lasting resolve to organize and strategize together. SEIU's Mary Kay Henry, NEA's Lily Eskelsen Garcia, AFT's Randi Weingarten, and AFSCME's Lee Saunders all held a joint press call after Tuesday's decision, and "all four of us understand the importance of working together and combining our resources, working on a political agenda, legislative agenda," Saunders said. "We were doing that before Friedrichs but obviously Friedrichs pushed us to do more."

Ruling in Favor of Friedrichs Will Hurt Children and Education

By Jeff Bryant

Earlier this month, news about a US Supreme Court case Friedrichs v California Teachers Association raised concerns for progressives everywhere – and for good reason. As my colleague Dave Johnson writes, the case is about “making every state a ‘right-to-work’ state, and suppressing unions and wages.” So this case is another example of right wing conservatism siding with concentrated wealth and power to undercut the abilities of working people to organize and demand better wages and work conditions.

 So a month or so from now, if  you hear about the court has decided to uphold the plaintiffs in the Friedrichs case, and not the teachers union, as many expect will happen, please understand the judges’ decision won’t just hurt teachers’ paychecks and their rights to organize and speak out. It will hurt our children’s education.

Friedrichs v CTA- an Assault on All Public Sector Unions

Steven Greenhouse, a former labor and workplace reporter for the New York Times, is a visiting researcher at the Russell Sage Foundation.

On Monday, during oral arguments in the most important labor case to come before the Supreme Court in years, the court’s conservative majority gave every indication that it will rule that government workers cannot be required to pay fees to the unions that represent them. If it does, the high court will deal a punishing blow to U.S. public-sector unions, whose full consequences may become clear only in the next economic downturn.

Such a ruling in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association might well turn out to be good for Americans as taxpayers, but not so good for Americans as workers.

In education, the tradeoffs are particularly thorny. Teachers unions look out for the interests of teachers, and in doing so, their interests often parallel — but also conflict with — the interests of working people who want a good education for their children. Labor’s critics say Friedrichs could improve education by weakening teachers unions that, for instance, vigorously support tenure and oppose charter schools. But undermining teachers unions could also harm public schools, because those unions push to increase education spending and often cooperate with school officials on vital workplace issues, such as school safety. By weakening unions, Friedrichs could ultimately mean lower compensation and larger workloads for teachers. And while that might lower school taxes, it might also mean that fewer talented young people go into teaching, ultimately hurting middle-class and low-income children who need good educations to get ahead.

The Right to Unite - Teachers

Friedrichs v California CTA

Friedrichs v CTA

TEACHERS FILE FRIEDRICHS BRIEF: A group of California teachers filed the first salvo in a Supreme Court case that could impose right-to-work rules on government employees nationwide. Lawyers for Rebecca Friedrichs and several other teachers asked the high court to overrule its 1977 Abood precedent and prohibit unions from collecting non-member agency fees to cover bargaining costs. The plaintiffs say that unions such as the California Teachers Association "administer the largest regime of compelled political speech in the nation," according to the Sept. 4 brief. 

"California law makes these payments mandatory for every teacher working in an agency-shop school - which is virtually every teacher. This multi-hundred-million-dollar regime of compelled political speech is irreconcilable with this court's decisions in every related First Amendment context, as well as its recent recognition of 'the critical First Amendment rights at stake' in such arrangements," they said. 

Read the full brief, courtesy of On Labor: 

 Reposted from Politico, Morning Edition 

The Next Effort to Break Teachers' Unions

Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association 

Randi Weingarten

The anti-worker forces that are trying to break our union just got a big break from the United States Supreme Court. This morning, the court agreed to hear the case Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association during its next term.

Make no mistake: This case is not about individual liberty or the First Amendment. It is an outright attack against unions to prevent us from representing our members and using our voices to fight for our families, our schools, our colleges, our healthcare facilities and our communities.

We’re preparing a national campaign to mobilize our members and communities across the country to fight for an America where everyone’s voice matters. Sign up to join when we launch later this summer.

This case would undermine our unions and challenge nearly 40 years of precedent—and the court agreed to hear it barely a year after it dealt a blow to workers with its decision in Harris v. Quinn. In fact, the conservative justices on the court used the Harris v.Quinn ruling to invite cases like this one, showing just how political they really are.