Assignment 1 Kimberly Hargrave

Collective Bargaining Situation: Teachers Take Union Dues to Supreme Court
Kimberly Hargrave
HRMN 362 – Paper 1
February 1, 2015

Introduction. Collective bargaining units are formed within unions to help negotiate the employers’ terms and conditions of employment. Nonunion teachers have been fighting a continuous battle to stand for the right to not pay collective bargaining fees that they have no voice in but can potentially benefit from. This double edged sword of a case has been brought to the attention of the Supreme Court again on January 26, 2015. (Bidwell) The precedent set by the Supreme Court deems that the fee required by nonunion members are constitutional so long that the dues were not utilized in ideological and political purposes. However, Alito argued that “collective bargaining issues are inherently political in the public sector.”(Bidwell) Therefore, this fight has created the need to evaluate the pros and cons of dissolving the financial support from all nonunion members. Cause of dispute. The cause of the dispute is not the fee itself, or even the fact of collective bargaining; but the right of the first amendment in terms of the condition of these union-based fees. For the union members, they feel that the rulings made in the union during collective bargaining also benefit nonunion members; therefore their portion of contribution is valid since they also inherit the same benefits. (Bidwell) Arguments. The non-union members end up contributing hundreds of dollars a year to political activities that they do not agree with because the “opt-out” process is “too complex.” (Bidwell) The Supreme Court ruled in 1977 that requiring individuals to pay for any more than the cost of collective bargaining (i.e. lawyers, negotiators…) violated the First Amendment rights, so unions created a system to allow members to submit a letter to the affiliated union to request reimbursement. Teacher unions feel that these collective dues are an issue of fairness “to prevent ‘free-riding’” (Bidwell); it is a “non-negotiable” privilege of union representation (Teacher Union Exposed). According to Express-Times opinion staff, non-union member are allowed to challenge how the unions set the fees and how they are utilized, i.e. donating to a non-religious charity of their choosing. If unions are to survive, they must be allowed to function as they were meant to; meaning some individuals have to sacrifice to obtain a collective economic clout. (Express-Times opinion staff) Third party. In retrospect, the third party is the US Government’s support on the issue and the historical Supreme Court rulings. Some states have passed laws to limit fee collections by public labor unions in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Indiana. In Wisconsin, limited collective bargaining is now prohibited and has banned withholding dues from members’ and nonmembers’ paychecks. (Bidwell) The Supreme Court, however, rules that collective bargaining by unions are deemed constitutional so long as they are used for the intended purpose. Utilizing fees for political or ideological agendas are prohibited. (Bidwell) Dispute history. This dispute has continued since at least 1977 (Teacher Union Exposed). The initial ruling during the case Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the Supreme Court upheld collective bargaining fees on the basis of precedents in Railway Employees’ Dept. v. Hanson (1956) and International Ass’n of Machinists v. Street(1961) (Cornell Law). However, the ruling in of 1977 implemented restrictions on use of funds of non-collective bargaining purposes to secure the rights of the First Amendment in relation to the freedom of speech and association. The dispute is ongoing and is again petitioned to the Supreme Court to hear these challenges against the required union collective bargaining fees. The plaintiff’s lawsuit, which was initially filed in April 2013, hopes that the Supreme Court would overturn their initial ruling and favor the nonunion members their completely expressive right to the First Amendment. What if? The dispute has gone to the Supreme Court once again on the basis of preserving the rights of the First Amendment. However, this dispute on collective bargaining appears that it could be handled on a local level: the union. As mentioned before by Express-Time opinion staff, the non-union members can challenge the fees or go through the “rigorous” process to receive their reimbursements. The fact that this has gone to the Supreme Court three times prior with a consistent ruling makes it seem that the overruling would be unlikely.

Work Cite
Bidwell, A. (2015, January 26). Teachers Take Union Dues to Supreme Court. U.S. News and World Report. Retrieved January 26, 2015, from http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/01/26/teachers-petition-supreme-court-to-overturn-forced-collective-bargaining-dues
D. Louis ABOOD et al., Appellants, v. DETROIT BOARD OF EDUCATION et al. (1977, January 1). Retrieved January 27, 2015, from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/431/209
Express-Time opinion staff. (2015, January 30). EDITORIAL: 'Fair share' fees allow non-union teachers to have their cake and protest it, too. Lehigh Valley Live. Retrieved January 30, 2015, from http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/opinion/index.
Information for Teachers. (2015, January 1). Retrieved January 25, 2015, from http://teachersunionexposed.com/teachers.php