A group of nonunion teachers in California is challenging a state law requiring them to pay money to the local union in order to cover their “fair share” of collective bargaining activities. Under the law, public employees who choose not to join unions must pay an “agency fee,” which is usually 65 to 100 percent of the full union membership dues. These fees are meant to finance bargaining over working conditions that benefit both union and nonunion members.
More than 20 other states have similar laws, but the plaintiffs in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association argue it is a violation of their First Amendment rights, as the law forces them to pay money to support positions with which they disagree. The group is calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to overrule Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, a 1977 case which held that agency fees for collective bargaining costs prevent freeloading and ensure “labor peace,” thereby justifying any First Amendment interference. The plaintiffs also argue that nonunion members should not have to fill out paperwork each year to opt out of paying for non-bargaining, political costs. Instead, the unions should get consent before charging fees for political causes.
Union supporters worry this challenge is part of a larger plan to limit the power of public unions. In recent history, the majority of the labor movement’s growth has been in the public sector and this case could serve as a major financial blow to public unions. The plaintiffs, however, assert that public-sector unions will not be bankrupted if they lose the agency fees of non-members.
The U.S. Supreme Court heard expanded arguments on this case on January 11, 2016, and is expected to issue a decision by June.