U.S. Supreme Court Accepts Case to Give 'Right-to-Work' to All Public Employees

[MH1]

http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/21499

On the final day of its most recent session, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it will consider a labor law case that experts say could dramatically limit the power of government employee unions.

Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association was brought on behalf of 10 California public school teachers who sued for the right to leave their union and not still pay "agency fees." If the Supreme Court rules in their favor, it could have the same effect as extending right-to-work law protections to all public employees by invalidating the involuntary extraction of agency fees from worker paychecks. Previous decisions have recognized workers' right to not have union dues extracted, but agency fees are still allowed. These fees are typically 80 percent of the full dues payments. ....

Also more here:
SCOTUS Case Could Bring "Right to Work" to All 50 States
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=14140

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.

...

I always think of "right to work" as "right to work for less". I am in a non-union job in the IT industry and see very well what we lose by not having a union.

Cross-posted in Omaha Steve's Labor Group.

[HassleCat]

1. What about states' rights?

This is an issue we always left up to the states before. The arrangement is a condition of employment. Don't like it? Don't take the job. Of course, our brave Justices will leap into the breach and boldly fight for the "rights of the workers." I can't believe teachers are so stupid they would try to weaken their union, just when they are under attack by every right winger in the country. Should people this stupid be teaching our children?

[MH1]

2. I don't know that this would be a state's rights issue.

Seems like it would come under the commerce clause in most cases.

However, as the second article points out, the workers already have the right to not be in the union; they can pay the share of dues that goes to contract negotiation and opt out of the part that goes to political lobbying.