Outten & Golden: Empowering Employees in the Workplace

Posts Tagged ‘Harris v. Quinn’

A Scalia-less, deadlocked Supreme Court spares unions. For now.

Wednesday, March 30th, 2016

When Justice Antonin Scalia died, virtually every labor activist in the country thought one thing: “Friedrichs?” Now, the Supreme Court has announced its decision on the case in question—and all those labor activists are breathing a sigh of relief.

In January, the Supreme Court heard Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, a case brought by anti-union groups to explicitly weaken public sector unions by allowing non-members to refuse to pay a fee for the representation they receive from the union. Longstanding precedent said that these workers did not have to pay for union political activity but did have to pay a fee for collective bargaining and other representation … but opponents of unions calculated that the time had come when the court would overturn that. Scalia himself was seen as a critical swing vote on this issue. He had stood by the precedent requiring fair share fees in the past, but in 2014, he had voted to chip away at the workers covered by that in Harris v. QuinnThe stakes were high:

One brief in the case indicates that in states where teachers are covered by collective bargaining but aren’t forced to pay agency fees, about 34 percent are “free riders.” Moreover, states that have the compulsory fees for workers have much higher union membership in the public sector—an average of nearly 50 percent—compared with states where such fees are banned (17 percent).

Again, we’re talking about workers paying for things unions do that directly benefit them: Bargaining contracts with better pay and working conditions, and representing them in grievances. And where workers don’t have to pay a fee, they still get the same level of representation as their coworkers who are union members. Antonin Scalia seemed prepared to join in Justice Samuel Alito’s anti-worker crusade and dramatically weaken unions by forcing them to represent non-members for free. And then he died, and the decision we get is:

The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.

That means the precedent stands and unions aren’t gutted. At least as long as Scalia isn’t replaced by another hardcore conservative, anti-union vote on the court. That’s our fight now.

Please donate $3 today to help turn the Senate blue. The future of the Supreme Court depends on it.

This blog originally appeared in dailykos.com on March 29, 2016. Reprinted with permission.

Laura Clawson has been a Daily Kos contributing editor since December 2006 and Labor editor since 2011.

When Scalia Died, So Did ‘Friedrichs’—And an Even Grander Scheme To Destroy Unions

Wednesday, February 24th, 2016

Conservatives had a great plan in motion to decimate unions. If Justice Antonin Scalia hadn’t died in his sleep, they almost certainly would have pulled it off.

First they got the Court to rule their way in 2014’s Harris v. Quinnwhich targeted home healthcare unions. Like “right to work” laws, the case sought to gut unions’ funding and diminish solidarity by saying that union members can’t be required to pay dues. The Court agreed, holding that the First Amendment does not allow the collection of fair share fees from home healthcare workers. The decision, written by Justice Alito and signed by the Court’s four other conservatives, also not-so-subtly invited further attacks on the funding and membership of unions.

Next came Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, which sought to expand Harris to impose right-to-work on all public sector employees. The conservative Center for Individual Rights (CIR) rushed Friedrichs to the Supreme Court by essentially conceding at every lower court that under current law, it should lose. Friedrichs could only win if the Supreme Court overturned 39 years of precedent that date back to the 1977 Abood v. Detroit Board of Education decision.

When the Court accepted Friedrichs, there was some hope that Justice Scalia might provide the critical vote to save public-sector unions. This was not because Scalia had any great love for labor—he did not—but because he understood the basic economic theory of free riders: Just like any other enterprise, it can be difficult for a union to get its members to pay dues when they can get all the benefits of the contract for free. Scalia had said as much in a 1991 concurrence-dissent, and many were hoping that he would exercise consistency with Friedrichs.

However, the oral arguments on Friedrichs last month destroyed any such illusions. Justice Scalia, never coy about his beliefs, made it clear that he now believed that fair share fees should be eliminated. Though it’s often difficult to divine the Court’s final decision from oral arguments, it was plain after the Friedrichs arguments that labor would lose.

Accordingly, labor was scrambling to figure out how best to run a union in a post-Friedrichsworld. Meanwhile, conservatives already had a plan in the works to expand what they saw as a certain win.

Last week, in a little-noticed case called D’Agostino v. Baker, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation lost at the First Circuit in their attempt to argue that the First Amendment does not allow exclusive representation of home healthcare workers. This case sought to expand theHarris holding by arguing that the First Amendment prohibits home healthcare unions not only from collecting fees from workers who don’t want to pay, but also from bargaining on behalf of any worker who doesn’t opt to be a member.

Former Supreme Court Justice David Souter wrote the decision for the First Circuit inD’Agnostino, relying heavily on Abood and its progeny. If history is any indication, National Right to Work was planning on appealing this case to the Supreme Court. The case  provided a glimpse of what the likely post-Friedrichs plan of attack would have been: After you win on the dues front, go after membership.

In addition, other cases, such as Bain v. CTA, that attacked the membership rights of unions but had been thrown out by lower courts, were likely to reappear.

However, on Saturday it was reported that Justice Scalia had been found dead. With his absence from the Court, conservative plans to attack union dues and membership through Supreme Court challenges may have dissolved for now.

If President Obama can get a new justice confirmed by a Republican-controlled Senate and that justice is permitted to take part in Friedrichs, then the case will likely be decided 5-4 in favor of labor.  If Republicans leaders made good on their vow to thwart any nomination by Obama, or the new justice does not take part in Friedrichs—either because the Court decides not to set it for rehearing or the justice must recuse herself—then all indications are that the case will be decided 4-4. In the event of such a tie, the lower court ruling is upheld—in this instance, the 9th Circuit’s dismissal of the case.

When the Supreme Court ties 4-4, no precedent is set. Anyone in labor worried about that outcome in Friedrichs can rest a bit easier remembering that no precedent is needed here. Aboodcreated the precedent in 1977, and Friedrichs was a shameless ideological ploy to overturn that longstanding precedent. In Friedrichs, the CIR did not present the Supreme Court with the typical grounds for review: either a “a circuit split,” where lower courts issued conflicting decisions, or proof that circumstances had changed so significantly since Abood that the Supreme Court needed to reconsider its ruling. (Justice Stephen Breyer pointed to the absurdity of the Court overruling good case law for no good reason when he asked in oral arguments whether the Court should also revisit its landmark 1803 decision in Marbury v. Madison, which helped set the very terms of judicial review.)

Therefore, unlike other cases on the Court’s docket, if Friedrichs goes away quietly, it will stay gone until there is another conservative majority.

Without a Friedrichs decision that bans fair share fees, it is unlikely the Supreme Court would accept D’Agostino, and even less likely that it would decide against labor in such a case. Other cases attacking the membership rules of unions on specious Constitutional grounds are similarly unlikely to make it to the Supreme Court. With Justice Scalia’s unexpected death, conservatives will have to go back to attacking labor the old-fashioned way: at the state and federal legislatures.

This post originally appeared on inthesetimes.com on February 15, 2016.  Reprinted with permission.

Moshe Z. Marvit is an attorney and fellow with The Century Foundation and the co-author (with Richard Kahlenberg) of the book Why Labor Organizing Should be a Civil Right.

 

Your Rights Job Survival The Issues Features Resources About This Blog