October 19, 2021 Breaking News, Latest News, and Videos

Union Dues Foes May Still Win, Despite Three Ballot Losses:

The common assumption in California politics is that labor unions will always be a major force because they have been for the last 30-plus years. But change may be coming, even though organized labor since 1996 has beaten back three ballot initiatives aiming to end its influence.

The issue here is union dues paid by public employees. Rules are different for unions cover- ing workers in private business.

In 1996, 2005 and 2012, conservatives seeking to end labor’s donations to political candidates (almost exclusively to Democrats) ran ballot initiatives aiming to end the obligation of schoolteachers and other employees to pay union dues unless they want to.

All three measures called themselves “pay- check protection,” seeking to force unions to get yearly written permission from members before using their dues money for political purposes. The most recent went a step further, aiming to ban direct contributions from unions to political candidates.

All three measures lost, but never by large margins. Each became a fairness issue: Labor would have a vastly diminished political voice if any of these propositions had passed, but corpo- rations and wealthy individuals would not have seen their influence cut, and that would tilt the electoral playing field in unprecedented ways.

After losing three times and wasting more

than $20 million on those efforts, conservatives were forced to conclude voters won’t soon opt to deprive unions of their political voice. So they turned to the courts.

The libertarian-oriented, Washington, D.C.-based Center for Individual Rights (CIR) found 10 California schoolteachers who don’t like being represented by the 300,000-member California Teachers Assn. One of them, Rebecca Friedrichs of Orange County, became the lead plaintiff in a case that will be heard this fall by the U.S. Supreme Court, with a decision due by the end of June 2016 – just in time for next year’s general election campaign.

The case, Friedrichs vs. California Teachers Assn. et al, seeks to overturn a 1977 Supreme Court ruling that lets public employee unions collect dues from everyone covered by their bargaining, even if some of those people don’t want to be involved. In the CTA’s case, for almost 40 years, those who don’t want to be covered have not had to pay the roughly 35 percent of dues that normally goes to political donations and campaigning.

But the Friedrichs lawsuit contends that all public employee union activity is political, not just functions openly labeled that way. “Bargaining with local governments is inherently political,” argues the CIR. “Whether the union is negotiating for specific class sizes or pressing a local government to spend tax dollars on teacher pensions…, the union’s negotiating positions embody political choices that are often controversial.”

So this case aims well beyond the three failed ballot initiatives. This one seeks to deprive public employee unions of virtually all their funding, unless workers voluntarily pay. No one knows how many would, with annual dues in the CTA, for example, often topping $1,000.

That makes this a life and death case for the unions, and they can’t be certain of the outcome. One justice, Samuel Alito, wrote in a previous union-related case that “…no person in this country may be compelled to subsidize speech by a third party that he or she does not wish to support.”

Ironically, the unions’ best hope for picking up the vote they need to expand beyond the high court’s four solidly liberal justices might be that of Antonin Scalia, often the court’s leading conservative. In a 1991 case, he wrote that because public sector unions have a legal duty to represent all employees, it’s reasonable to expect all workers to share the costs.

But Scalia doesn’t have to be consistent, and sometimes is not. Meanwhile, frequent swing vote Anthony Kennedy has not always been friendly to labor.

The bottom line is that no one knows how this case may turn out. Which means candidates of all stripes should be getting ready today for an earthquake-scale change in California’s political funding, one that might come at a vital, key moment in next year’s campaign.

in Opinion
Related Posts

SMa.r.t. Column: When Water Runs Out

October 15, 2021

October 15, 2021

What happens when a City runs out of water? You have already heard of the torture endured by communities in...

Message From Santa Monica’s New City Manager David White

October 11, 2021

October 11, 2021

To the Santa Monica Community – it is with tremendous excitement that today I begin my first day as your...

Hot Flash: Can You Look Sexy in a CPAP?

September 26, 2021

September 26, 2021

I have sleep apnea.  I wear a CPAP to bed every night.  I look like I am a monster from...

LA County Committee Report Reflects a “Dire” Financial Future for Students of Santa Monica if City of Malibu’s Proposal to Split the District Is Approved

September 14, 2021

September 14, 2021

Editor’s note: the public comment period mentioned in the following letter has ended. The following is a letter from Santa...

SMa.r.t. Column: Stop the Steroids

September 10, 2021

September 10, 2021

Part 2/2 Santa Monicans face the usual fears of crime, Covid-19 and its collapsing job and housing impact including the...

SMa.r.t. Column: Fix Those Balconies!

August 23, 2021

August 23, 2021

About six years ago a fifth-floor balcony in a Berkeley apartment building collapsed. A group of students standing on the...

Editorial: Unprofessionalism and Racial Insensitivity at Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. Leaves a Lot to Be Desired

August 20, 2021

August 20, 2021

By Santa Monica Mirror Editorial Staff A recent incident in which an executive at Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. flippantly used...