SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
As Special Interests Attack, 'Bad Day for Organized Labor' at Supreme Court
Reporting on oral arguments suggests at least four justices are ready to overturn precedent on public sector union fees
Jan 11, 2016
Monday's oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court, in a case that could strike a devastating blow to public sector unions nationwide, "did not go well for organized labor," Bloomberg reporter Josh Eidelson told MSNBC following the hearing.
Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (CTA) seeks to overturn the legal framework that requires those who are represented by a union to pay dues.
Justice Antonin Scalia has in the past shown skepticism about anti-union arguments like those presented Monday in Friedrichs--prior to the hearing, Eidelson called him "unions' best hope of winning." But when he spoke on Monday, Eidelson explained, it was "generally to say things that would give much more hope to the plaintiffs, to the teachers who don't want to have to pay union fees."
Politico on Monday offered a similar assessment, saying that "four justices appeared skeptical of the court's own holding in the 1977 Abood decision, which ruled the fees constitutional."
"Justices [Samuel] Alito and [Anthony] Kennedy seemed the most hostile to the unions' position," Politico reported, "but there was little indication that [Chief Justice John] Roberts or Scalia supported the unions' side."
As AFSCME, the nation's largest public sector union, has stated: "If the Supreme Court overturns the unanimous 1977 Supreme Court decision called Abood v Detroit Board of Education, which upheld the payment of 'fair share fees' by nonmembers for their share of the cost of their representation, it would mean that every state in the country would be a 'right-to-work' state for all public service employees."
The Washington Post noted that "[l]iberal justices during an hour and a half of oral arguments said the challengers had not supplied the kind of evidence required for the court to overturn a precedent."
However, the paper continued:
[T]he court's conservative majority in 2012 and 2014 expressed grave doubts about the 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, and there seemed little reason after the oral arguments for unions to think the majority was not ready to now finish it off.
Justice Antonin Scalia in the past has expressed sympathy for the view that the unions needed to collect the fees to prevent "free riders" -- those who benefit from the agreements unions reach with government employers but do not pay for the union's costs.
But he did not pose any questions Monday that favored the union's view and said he doubted whether such fees were necessary to union survival.
Outside the court on Monday, both pro- and anti-union activists rallied with signs and chants. Among those putting out the call on the anti-union side were members of what PR Watch last week described as a "massive right-wing funding machine" that includes the Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity and the State Policy Network (SPN), an $84+ million network of state-based "think tanks," funded by the Kochs and others with close interlocking ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).
But unions and workers came out to counter the spin.
A decision in the case is expected by late June.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Deirdre Fulton
Deirdre Fulton is a former Common Dreams senior editor and staff writer. Previously she worked as an editor and writer for the Portland Phoenix and the Boston Phoenix, where she was honored by the New England Press Association and the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. A Boston University graduate, Deirdre is a co-founder of the Maine-based Lorem Ipsum Theater Collective and the PortFringe theater festival. She writes young adult fiction in her spare time.
Monday's oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court, in a case that could strike a devastating blow to public sector unions nationwide, "did not go well for organized labor," Bloomberg reporter Josh Eidelson told MSNBC following the hearing.
Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (CTA) seeks to overturn the legal framework that requires those who are represented by a union to pay dues.
Justice Antonin Scalia has in the past shown skepticism about anti-union arguments like those presented Monday in Friedrichs--prior to the hearing, Eidelson called him "unions' best hope of winning." But when he spoke on Monday, Eidelson explained, it was "generally to say things that would give much more hope to the plaintiffs, to the teachers who don't want to have to pay union fees."
Politico on Monday offered a similar assessment, saying that "four justices appeared skeptical of the court's own holding in the 1977 Abood decision, which ruled the fees constitutional."
"Justices [Samuel] Alito and [Anthony] Kennedy seemed the most hostile to the unions' position," Politico reported, "but there was little indication that [Chief Justice John] Roberts or Scalia supported the unions' side."
As AFSCME, the nation's largest public sector union, has stated: "If the Supreme Court overturns the unanimous 1977 Supreme Court decision called Abood v Detroit Board of Education, which upheld the payment of 'fair share fees' by nonmembers for their share of the cost of their representation, it would mean that every state in the country would be a 'right-to-work' state for all public service employees."
The Washington Post noted that "[l]iberal justices during an hour and a half of oral arguments said the challengers had not supplied the kind of evidence required for the court to overturn a precedent."
However, the paper continued:
[T]he court's conservative majority in 2012 and 2014 expressed grave doubts about the 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, and there seemed little reason after the oral arguments for unions to think the majority was not ready to now finish it off.
Justice Antonin Scalia in the past has expressed sympathy for the view that the unions needed to collect the fees to prevent "free riders" -- those who benefit from the agreements unions reach with government employers but do not pay for the union's costs.
But he did not pose any questions Monday that favored the union's view and said he doubted whether such fees were necessary to union survival.
Outside the court on Monday, both pro- and anti-union activists rallied with signs and chants. Among those putting out the call on the anti-union side were members of what PR Watch last week described as a "massive right-wing funding machine" that includes the Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity and the State Policy Network (SPN), an $84+ million network of state-based "think tanks," funded by the Kochs and others with close interlocking ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).
But unions and workers came out to counter the spin.
A decision in the case is expected by late June.
Deirdre Fulton
Deirdre Fulton is a former Common Dreams senior editor and staff writer. Previously she worked as an editor and writer for the Portland Phoenix and the Boston Phoenix, where she was honored by the New England Press Association and the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. A Boston University graduate, Deirdre is a co-founder of the Maine-based Lorem Ipsum Theater Collective and the PortFringe theater festival. She writes young adult fiction in her spare time.
Monday's oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court, in a case that could strike a devastating blow to public sector unions nationwide, "did not go well for organized labor," Bloomberg reporter Josh Eidelson told MSNBC following the hearing.
Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (CTA) seeks to overturn the legal framework that requires those who are represented by a union to pay dues.
Justice Antonin Scalia has in the past shown skepticism about anti-union arguments like those presented Monday in Friedrichs--prior to the hearing, Eidelson called him "unions' best hope of winning." But when he spoke on Monday, Eidelson explained, it was "generally to say things that would give much more hope to the plaintiffs, to the teachers who don't want to have to pay union fees."
Politico on Monday offered a similar assessment, saying that "four justices appeared skeptical of the court's own holding in the 1977 Abood decision, which ruled the fees constitutional."
"Justices [Samuel] Alito and [Anthony] Kennedy seemed the most hostile to the unions' position," Politico reported, "but there was little indication that [Chief Justice John] Roberts or Scalia supported the unions' side."
As AFSCME, the nation's largest public sector union, has stated: "If the Supreme Court overturns the unanimous 1977 Supreme Court decision called Abood v Detroit Board of Education, which upheld the payment of 'fair share fees' by nonmembers for their share of the cost of their representation, it would mean that every state in the country would be a 'right-to-work' state for all public service employees."
The Washington Post noted that "[l]iberal justices during an hour and a half of oral arguments said the challengers had not supplied the kind of evidence required for the court to overturn a precedent."
However, the paper continued:
[T]he court's conservative majority in 2012 and 2014 expressed grave doubts about the 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, and there seemed little reason after the oral arguments for unions to think the majority was not ready to now finish it off.
Justice Antonin Scalia in the past has expressed sympathy for the view that the unions needed to collect the fees to prevent "free riders" -- those who benefit from the agreements unions reach with government employers but do not pay for the union's costs.
But he did not pose any questions Monday that favored the union's view and said he doubted whether such fees were necessary to union survival.
Outside the court on Monday, both pro- and anti-union activists rallied with signs and chants. Among those putting out the call on the anti-union side were members of what PR Watch last week described as a "massive right-wing funding machine" that includes the Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity and the State Policy Network (SPN), an $84+ million network of state-based "think tanks," funded by the Kochs and others with close interlocking ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).
But unions and workers came out to counter the spin.
A decision in the case is expected by late June.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.