SCOTUS Case Could Bring "Right to Work" to All 50 States

[Jefferson23]

Labor Notes' Samantha Winslow explains how the Supreme Court could weaken public sector worker unions

- July 1, 2015

Bio

Samantha Winslow joined Labor Notes as a Staff Writer in November 2012. She was an organizer for SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West in California and later for the breakaway National Union of Healthcare Workers. She covers teachers, public sector workers, and USW.

Transcript

SCOTUS Case Could Bring JESSICA DESVARIEUX, PRODUCER, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Jessica Desvarieux in Baltimore.

The Supreme Court has decided to take up a case that could have major repercussions for public sector unions. In the case Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association the plaintiffs are arguing for the overturning of a current law that requires workers to pay fees for union representation even if they are not members. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiff, the public sector jobs sector nationwide could become, quote-unquote, a right to work.

Now joining us to discuss all of this is Samantha Winslow. Samantha is joining us from New York. She is a staff writer for Labor Notes. And before that she was an organizer for SEIU United Healthcare Workers, west in California.

Thank you for joining us, Samantha.

SAMANTHA WNSLOW, STAFF WRITER, LABOR NOTES: Thanks for having me.

DESVARIEUX: So we should note that the court will begin hearing the case in its next session, so that's not until the fall. But this is a very important case because the court has even decided to take it on. Supporters of right to work legislation say that public sector workers should be able to exercise their First Amendment rights to not pay if they don't want to be in a union.

So for you, Samantha, considering that argument, shouldn't we sort of take a listen to what they have to say? That if in order for them, that they shouldn't be paying these union dues if they're not a part of the union.

WINSLOW: Well, they have the right to not be in a union right now. And so what the compromise is is that they have to pay a fair share of the dues that full members pay. And the thinking behind that is that they enjoy the benefits of the union contract. They enjoy the wage increases that the union negotiates, and they enjoy the job security. And they can even be represented if they face discipline or some kind of attack from their employer.

So that was what the Supreme Court decided three years ago to compromise, to say that yes, you have the right to be a member or not be a member. But you do have to pay a fair share of dues to cover the representation that is required by law.

DESVARIEUX: Okay. And current labor law also says that these dues and fees used for union representation cannot be used for political or ideological activities other than representation in bargaining and administering contracts. But isn't the union activity like bargaining inherently political in some ways?

WINSLOW: Well, it is political in that members are engaging in an activity with their employer, but the specific money that goes to politics would be that extra chunk of the dues that the fair share members don't have to pay.

So what it really is is a contract between the employees, the workplace and the employer. And just like any other contract where the agreement is that everybody covered has to pay dues. And just to clarify, the case is actually going to decide whether public sector unions can negotiate a closed shop or not. So it's up to their employer, whether it's county or state or an agency to decide whether it's an open or closed shop.

DESVARIEUX: What does that mean, exactly?

WINSLOW: What it means is that there are some open shops where membership is voluntary. Even in the public sector there was, San Diego County for example, public employees were in an open shop up until recently.

So all this, all the Supreme Court ruling in '77 said was that you, once you negotiate that closed shop, you're required to pay that fair share. So it's giving unions the right to make these contracts with employers in the public sector.

DESVARIEUX Okay. Let's sort of play hypotheticals here. Let's say the Supreme Court rules in favor of overturning the law and then workers voluntarily decide not to pay for representation. Wouldn't this be more of a reflection of how public workers feel unions and the current labor movement is really addressing their concerns. So it's not necessarily the Supreme Court, but these labor unions haven't been doing their best job at being a adequate representation for these laborers.

WINSLOW: Well, I think that that's a fair question, and I would start by saying that the right to work movement and the business end conservative interests that are going after dues, they're not really interested in what's best for workers. They're not thinking about what's the best way to improve standards for workers. They're--on the contrary, they're thinking of undermining it. But this absolutely poses a challenge for unions, where they now have to think about how to remain relevant to all their members, that they can't just take for granted that the ten percent or 20 percent or 30 percent who don't want to be members are going to be paying that fair share fee that they've been counting on all these years.

in full: http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=14140

[randys1]

1. Gee, I wonder if the SC appointments are important...sigh

If the criminal fucks on the SC do this, if one of the criminal fucks doesnt leave the court for any reason and get replaced by a non terrorist (Obama or...), then workers in America will be done and done and done.

Public so goes private, etc.

[Jefferson23]

2. The power of the SCOTUS is enormous as we know..Citizens United will be a fight like

no other to over turn even if we make sure we work hard to have a Democratic president
follow Obama's exit.

This is another case that makes me nervous too.

[Igel]

10. That's what you get in a democracy.

I guess.

It's democracy and a grand thing when we agree with the SCOTUS; it's a crapfest autocracy when we don't. Oddly, it's the same thing in both situations.

Leaving the really large, controversial country-changing decisions up to the SCOTUS is mostly what we've come to, mostly because controversial decisions require dialog, compromise, and time. Things we're simply not in the mood to tolerate.

[Jefferson23]

11. We're not in the mood to tolerate? Are you aware of how the case in point was crafted for the

court and moved there as quickly as possible? The problems that were behind the case are as essential
as the case itself...money in politics.


A democracy hanging by a thread in many ways.

[yeoman6987]

3. Last week was a great week for America because of the supreme court

And now we are back to seeing it negatively? The case has not even been decided on yet.

[Jefferson23]

4. Who on the court is pro labor, in your mind? n/t

[yeoman6987]

5. Honestly I don't know

But last week I was surprised to see more pro-ACA and pro-gay marriage then not.

[Jefferson23]

6. I understand that, but the conservatives on this court's history does not suggest

we should not be worried about it.

snip* From its beginnings, the case has been specially crafted for the Supreme Court, and if successful would affect tens of thousands of union contracts and would force millions of public employees into a right-to-work model.

Justice Alito has been inviting a case like Friedrichs for several years, and anti-union groups have been paying attention. In the 2012 Knox v. SEIU decision, which changed the way in which public sector unions assess optional fees (those not associated with collective bargaining, such as political and public relations activities and other matters not related to collective bargaining) from an opt-out to an opt-in procedure, Justice Alito, writing for the Court, said that “acceptance of the free-rider argument as a justification for compelling nonmembers to pay a portion of union dues represents something of an anomaly.”

At the time, many understood this statement to indicate that the free-rider and labor peace arguments propounded by previous Supreme Court decisions were no longer enough to convince the Court’s conservative majority of the justification for the allowance of fair share fees. Writing about the case for the New York Times, Linda Greenhouse recognized that “the issue in Knox seemed narrow, even arcane”; however, she explained, the decision set the stage for a full frontal assault on labor using the First Amendment.

In case his message in Knox wasn’t clear, Alito left no room for misinterpretation in his Harris v. Quinn decision last year.

remainder: http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/17595/friedrichs_v_california_teachers_association

[Romeo.lima333]

8. the supreme court hasnt changed

[Starry Messenger]

7. Yes. The situation is dire.

If every state goes right to work, we can kiss most of the reforms since the New Deal goodbye, let alone usher in socialism.

[PowerToThePeople]

12. Or it could be the catalyst that ushers in socialism. n/t

[Starry Messenger]

13. How will that happen with unions gone?

[PowerToThePeople]

14. with unions gone, socialism becomes the answer

unions protect capitalism from revolution.

[Starry Messenger]

15. Do you have an example of that from history?

Where socialism emerged when capital held the upper hand on the working class? Unions protect the rest of the working class from utter fascism.

[PowerToThePeople]

16. without those protections

People will protect themselves. "Unions" of people will still form but will not be a negotiator with capital. They will form to revolt against capital.

The February revolution is the closest example I know of, though many factors were at play there.

[Starry Messenger]

17. Our 29 Socialist RTW states must be awesome then.

[PowerToThePeople]

19. point taken

Maybe the tipping point has not been reached. The rtw states are mostly the low population states. Try in more urban areas with stronger union history and there may be different results

[Starry Messenger]

20. Well, we lost Detroit, which was the cradle of unionism in the US.

I myself am really not sure how much further we want to go to test this theory. San Francisco and LA are on the line in the case in the OP.

In CA we have high levels of unionism, and our move toward people-centered democracy is growing stronger.

If we lose this case, we will probably lose about 40% of our membership in 6 months and will have to turn all of our resources to fighting the remaining court cases that will come to mop up the rest of us.

We aren't going down without a fight.

[Romeo.lima333]

9. there are your moochers and takers

[Nye Bevan]

18. Why not have only union members covered by the union contract?

Those who choose not to pay union dues would not be in the union and would be on their own negotiating compensation and benefits. In this case wouldn't most people be happy to join the union and pay the dues?