35 Shares 0



35

0







The latest attempt to weaken the collective bargaining ability of American unions has failed in the Supreme Court, with justices splitting 4-4 on the decision.

Introduced as a conservative challenge from non-union California teachers, the measure targeted fees—known as "fair share"—that states charge workers in lieu of union dues. The money is used primarily to strengthen the collective bargaining position of unions, as every dollar in dues lost by employing non-union workers works against the collective power of unions.

If the court ruled in favor of the measure, teachers, police, transit worker, firefighter and various other government employee unions would have suffered a loss of millions annually.

A tie in the Supreme Court relegates the final decision to a lower court which has ruled in favor of unions.

Just two months ago during oral arguments, the case “Rebecca Friedrichs, et al., Petitioners v. California Teachers Association, et al.” seemed all but a lock for the conservative challengers, as the court had a 5-4 conservative lean. But the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February significantly changed the dynamic of the case.

“The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court,” Justices said in a succinct statement.

Conservatives, including Iain Murray, vice president for strategy at The Competitive Enterprise Institute think tank, sounded off on the deadlock calling it a disaster. "The death of Justice Scalia has proved a disaster for public sector workers who have their paychecks raided by unions," Murray said according to Reuters.

But with unions losing efficacy over the years thanks to conservative attacks, organized labor welcomed the decision. Some law experts consider the ruling integral to the continued existence of unions in the U.S.

“The U.S. Supreme Court today rejected a political ploy to silence public employees like teachers, school bus drivers, cafeteria workers, higher education faculty and other educators to work together to shape their profession,” said Lily Eskelsen García, president of the National Education Association said in a statement.

The measure up for debate would have extended the ban on compulsory fees for non-union members—which already exists in approximately half of U.S. states—to a federal mandate.

The plaintiffs argued that mandatory collective bargaining dues violate First Amendment Rights. Orange County teacher Rebecca Friedrichs led the charge, with lawyers arguing the compulsory dues were being used toward political purposes like wages or employee grievances.

Non-union California teachers pay the union of over 300,000 members approximately $600 annually in mandatory fees.

However, the California Teachers Association argued that the compulsory fee system was necessary for “fair allocation” of costs, beneficial to both union and non-union workers.

Dues from non-union members compel a public sector union to protect the rights of all employees, especially in collective bargaining agreements and employment terms and conditions according to the California Teachers Association.

"Outlawing fair-share fees will override the judgments of 23 States plus the District of Columbia that have enacted statutory collective-bargaining frameworks covering public-education employees," argued public teachers union attorney David C. Frederick in court.

"It will also throw into disarray tens of thousands of collective bargaining agreements governing millions of teachers, police officers, firefighters, first responders and other public employees,” added Frederick.