In the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court decision cutting off unions’ ability to collect fees from non-union workers delivered Wednesday, those standing behind local labor unions expressed a mixture of disappointment and renewed energy around their efforts.
By striking down the use of mandatory fees paid by nonmembers of public worker unions toward collective bargaining activities, the court’s ruling marked an end to the collection of agency fees, or fair share fees, used toward the expenses of contract negotiations and grievance handling by public sector unions. Allowed in 22 states including California, the fees are less than union dues and may not be used for political activities. Unions are required to represent all workers whether or not they are union members.
The court’s 5-4 vote in an Illinois case in which a state worker, child support specialist Mark Janus, challenged the agency fees, split the nine justices, five of whom joined Justice Samuel Alito in asserting the fees violate the constitutional First Amendment right of free speech.
“We conclude that this arrangement violates the free speech rights of nonmembers by compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern,” wrote Alito in his opinion.
Their decision sparked reactions from workers representing a wide array of unions as well as those shaping policy across the state, some of whom were buoyed and others who were discouraged by the news.
Representing the San Mateo Labor Council as its executive secretary-treasurer, Julie Lind Rupp condemned the decision as counter to the labor movement’s belief that all work has dignity, deserves respect and all workers deserve to be treated accordingly.
“In California, unions have partnered with progressive elected leaders to raise wages and reduce pay inequity, ensure all workers have paid sick days, enact paid family leave, strengthen workplace safety and so much more,” she said in a prepared statement. “Today, we commit to not only sustaining the labor movement, but building and strengthening it so more working people can negotiate a fair deal in return for their hard work.”
But for State Sen. John Moorlach, R-Costa Mesa, the decision was not only a win for those workers who have had a portion of their paychecks go to causes they may not support, it was also a source of hope that the hold unions have had on their negotiators might loosen.
Moorlach looked to the change to limit unions from coming close to threatening elected officials at the negotiating table and unwind some of the effects of the “slush fund” they have amassed in Sacramento, which he said has been used to tie up a considerable number of taxpayer dollars.
“That is just unfair and inappropriate, so this should help the unions step up their game to focus on the merits of the deal,” he said.
Having worked at the Palo Alto wastewater treatment plant for some 23 years, Margaret Adkins, Palo Alto chapter chair of Service Employee International Union, Local 521, spoke to the benefits of collective bargaining, which she said enabled workers to adequately provide for their families. Without union representation, workers’ earnings are at the discretion of management, said Adkins, who added that though nobody is forced to pay dues, many opt to because they recognize they are better able to advocate for themselves if they do.
Adkins was not convinced the ruling would diminish the ability of unions to advocate for workers, and said it’s widely recognized that large, powerful industries are behind the push to take away workers’ rights.
“I’m disappointed in the decision but it’s not going to affect us negatively,” she said. “We’re strong, we’re getting stronger and everybody sees this as what it is — as an attack on workers’ rights.”
California Teachers Association President Eric C. Heins agreed the decision was the result of a well-funded and nationally orchestrated effort to weaken the ability of workers to convene and speak in a united voice. By overturning precedence set by Abood v. Detroit Board of Education more than 40 years ago, the court’s ruling adopted a radical interpretation of the First Amendment and stands in the way of public teachers providing quality education for their students, said Heins.
“Today’s ruling is an attack on working people that attempts to further rig the economy and that reverses four decades of precedent,” said Heins in a prepared statement. “For educators, this an attempt to weaken our ability to stand up on behalf of our students and on behalf of quality public schools.”
Though Assemblyman Kevin Mullin, D-South San Francisco, was still processing how the decision could play out, he voiced concern about its impact on working people throughout the country.
“I also fully expect California will continue to lead the way on worker rights and workplace protections,” he said in a statement. “Today is a stark reminder of the import of the U.S. Supreme Court on issues of the day and that elections do indeed matter.”
Bay City News Service contributed to this report.
(2) comments
A horrendous week for both California and the Country. If there is one bright spot in all of this, it may be that it we will finally be able to hold the Police unions accountable for their many transgressions.
Victory- hopefully this decision will stop the control of our state from public unions and their elected officials. A great day for taxpayers and the state of California
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.