Anti-unionism is real reason behind Supreme Court case

Everyday Americans are facing a real battle keeping their heads above water financially. While unemployment continues to fall, incomes aren't rising for most workers. So it is particularly troublesome that the Supreme Court seems to be setting its sites on lowering incomes for thousands of public sector employees.

On Monday, the nation's highest court heard arguments why several California public school teachers don't think they should have to pay reduced fees that cover collective bargaining costs of their contracts. Those fees, mind you, are not used for political donations. But no matter, their attorney said it's all political and violates the the First Amendment rights of plaintiffs in Friedrich v. California Teachers Association.

Attorney Michael Carver, hired by right-to-work (RTW) forces, also insisted the case would not hurt unions:

Their burden of justification is much higher, because they can’t possibly show that abolition of the agency fees would lead to demise of unions.

Of course, that's exactly what it would do, and why the plaintiffs brought the case in the first place. And the Supreme Court appears ready to side with them, according to numerous media reports. As columnist Dana Milbank wrote in The Washington Post:

The huge political consequences of the case were unstated in the chamber, but the argument was at times as partisan as a debate on the House floor. Carvin frequently interrupted and talked over the three female justices — classic “mansplaining,” as Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick observed from the press seats. Carvin referred to the other side’s argument as the “so-called opposition” and pronounced Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s surname as “Soto-my-ear.” At one point he quipped that he has a First Amendment right not to join the American Bar Association, “because virtually every word out of their mouth I disagree with.” Justice Samuel Alito guffawed. 

The argument was mostly for show, because there was little doubt the 1977 Abood decision will go down. This will make it easier for public-sector workers who benefit from collective bargaining but who don’t want to be in unions to avoid paying fees to the union, even for nonpolitical functions. Union finances will be further drained at a time when labor is historically weak.

Hard-working Americans deserve more than to be shunted to the side by this nation's government. But that is exactly what will happen if the high court rules with the plaintiffs in this case. Union membership will likely further decline, wages will fall and fewer and fewer workers will have access to quality health care and retirement benefits.

A recent study showed that that a reduction in union membership was responsible for more than a third of the 7.6 percent decrease in the share of workers in the middle class between 1984 and 2014. That's what's at stake with this decision. 

The Teamsters and workers can't change the decision of the Supreme Court. But both can counteract any such a ruling by continuing to organize and pushing our lawmakers for policies that benefit workers. That why the Teamsters unveiled their "Let's Get America Working" platform last year and why it will continue to fight like hell to get it implemented.

Never forget -- Teamsters Strong, America Stronger!

• Press Associates, Inc., contributed to this report.

High court hears critical union case

The most important union-related case in more than a generation was heard before the U.S. Supreme Court this morning, and its effects could be wide-reaching for the Teamsters and other unions.

A negative ruling in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association involving public workers and their unions could hurt all workers nationwide in their fight for their rights and decency on the job. The case pits nine anti-union teachers against the two teachers unions in California who represent them and against the state. The issue is whether states can order anti-union workers – whom, however, the union represents -- to pay “agency fees” to cover costs of contract bargaining and administration, such as defending grievances.

Maryann Parker, associate general counsel for the Service Employees International Unions, said:

This case should be seen for what it is: It would place substantial limitations on the ability of working people to advocate for themselves. In terms of what’s happening in the country [to workers, their wages, their declining standards of living and their rights], it’s very important.

The plaintiffs say such orders and laws violate their free speech rights by forcing them to support union political positions. But in reality, speakers at the Jan. 6 American Constitution Society panel said, Friedrichs is part of a broader movement to strip all workers of their rights.

 They lost, intentionally, in lower courts, but took their case to the High Court at the outright invitation in a prior court ruling by Associate Justice Samuel Alito. In a parallel, but more restricted case two years ago, Alito questioned whether any public worker unions had the right to require non-members to pay agency fees.

He didn’t win then. If he wins now, there would be wide ramifications for all workers, public and private, union and non-union. Parker noted that by outlawing the right for unions to charge anyone even “agency fees” – not to mention membership dues – unions would lose funds that help workers band together and fight for their rights and a better standard of living.

Parker and panelist Anisha Gupta, New York state’s deputy solicitor general, also stressed the practical impact of a decision for the Friedrichs dissidents. It would overturn almost 40 years of laws, precedents and cases involving public workers, following a 1976 High Court ruling in a case, Abood, involving the Detroit school board and its teachers unions.

A decision in the case is not expected until June.

• Press Associates, Inc., contributed to this report.

High court rulings could affect workers

The future for workers on the job could be shaped significantly by a spate of cases set to be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court during its current term. And it is something more everyday Americans need to be aware of and consider.

Already, one high court decision is being lauded by the Teamsters. The justices this week denied the petition of Amerijet International, Inc., which sought to appeal a federal appeals court ruling that said worker disputes must be arbitrated under a collective bargaining agreement regardless of whether it occurred outside of the U.S.

The case originated from the dismissal by the cargo airline of a Teamster crew member while he was flying to Trinidad and Tobago. Capt. David Bourne, Director of the Teamsters Airline Division, said the justices made the right call:

It comes as no surprise that the Supreme Court would refuse to hear this case, and in doing so, uphold the Eleventh Circuit Court's reasoning that this lawsuit is without merit. The lawsuit by Amerijet is unnecessary and a blatant abuse of the legal process in an effort to circumvent the legally established standards of labor law.

But that's far from the only hurdle the Teamsters and other unions could face in front of the high court. At the top of the list is agency-fee case Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association. As has been mentioned here previously, if the court was to effectively institute so-called "right to work" for public sector jobs across the country, wages would likely fall far below what those in the private sector earn for the same work.

The Teamsters represent about 273,000 public sector workers, and other unions represent millions more. These government employees are everyday Americans just trying to earn a living and support their families. But that will be increasingly difficult if union rights are curtailed nationwide.

Meanwhile, two other cases warrant mentioning. The first case arose Nov. 10, when the justices heard a confused class-action dispute involving computing how much money Tyson Foods workers lost. The firm did not pay 3,300 of them at its Storm Lake, Iowa, plant for mandatory time spent putting on and taking off protective gear, such as steel aprons, goggles and heavy work boots.

As part of Tyson Foods v. Peg Bouaphakeo et al, the AFL-CIO, Chicago-based pro-worker Interfaith Worker Justice and the National Employment Law Project filed friend-of-the-court briefs supporting the Tyson workers. The IWJ-NELP brief told the justices that letting Tyson get away with its behavior would reward employers for breaking the law by not keeping accurate records of time their workers toiled.

The federation said the case is important to all workers covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act – the wage and overtime law – who are forced to sue when they don’t get paid.

And justices will hear arguments on Nov. 30 on USPS whistleblower Marvin Green’s case. Green, who is African-American, says he was “constructively discharged” – in essence, forced to quit, which is illegal under labor law – after he filed a whistleblower complaint in 2009.

His complaint arose out of a racial job discrimination claim after he sought a supervisory post in Englewood, Colo. He was turned down, because, he told federal equal employment officials, of his race. USPS later suspended Green for allegedly delaying the mail – a false charge – and the harassment and pressure forced him to quit.

The court must decide how long a whistleblower such as Green has to sue. The Postal Service argues that whistleblowers have 45 days to sue from the time the agency committed the offense – if it did. Green says the time starts from the day he was forced to quit.

• Press Associates, Inc. contributed to this report.

Making public sector jobs RTW will gut wages

Public-sector employees have become a punching bag for anti-union forces who are trying to cripple the movement. But with the U.S. Supreme Court getting ready to consider a lawsuit that could allow workers to opt-out of paying union dues while still receiving representation, a new report shows just how much value union membership brings to workers' paychecks.

The Economic Policy Institute unveiled a document showing that if the court was to effectively institute so-called "right to work" for public sector jobs across the country, wages would likely fall far below what those in the private sector earn for the same work. Thus, if the court was to side with the plaintiffs in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, millions of workers would be hurt.

Jeffrey Keefe, a professor at Rutgers University who authored the report, says instituting a policy that would reduce wages makes no sense, taking a step that would worsen income inequality:

When states provide full collective-bargaining rights and permit the enforcement of provisions that allow unions to collect dues from all employees they represent, regardless of membership, unions can lessen and even eliminate this gap. This makes it possible for state and local governments to attract workers that might otherwise go to the private sector.

The Teamsters represent about 273,000 public sector workers, and other unions represent millions more. These government employees are everyday Americans just trying to earn a living and support their families. But that will be increasingly difficult if union rights are curtailed nationwide.

Sticking up for union jobs is essential because it paves the way to a middle-class lifestyle. The median union worker makes more than $200 more a week than non-union workers. That's why the Teamsters stressed the need for more union jobs in its "Let's Get America Working" campaign. Workers earning more doesn't just help their families, it helps the economy at large as well because they spend more.

Teamster Strong, America Stronger!

High court could curb union rights

The Teamsters and other unions have helped build the middle class by negotiating for fair wages. But the corporate class and its allies are doing all they can to tear that down. And a Supreme Court case slated to be heard in the coming months could help anti-union forces reach their goal.

Public sector unions are the target of Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, where a handful or public school teachers are suing the state's teachers union affiliate saying they shouldn't have to pay union dues. This, of course, even though they get the full benefit of the union hammering out a contract and representing them.

The Los Angeles Times explains what's at stake:

At issue is the court’s 1977 precedent in Abood vs. Detroit Board of Education, which today allows government worker unions in California and 20 other states to collect “fair share” fees to cover the costs of collective bargaining, even from employees who do not join or support the union. 

Though the high court has said workers cannot be required to pay for a union’s political activities, it has concluded that they should contribute something toward a union’s cost of negotiating better wages and benefits for everyone. 

The court’s conservatives, particularly Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., have long questioned whether these forced fees in the public sector violate free speech because they require employees to support a union they may oppose.

While any ruling wouldn't affect private sector unions because only the government is required to abide by the First Amendment, its effect could be substantial nonetheless. The Teamsters represent more than 260,000 public sector workers, and millions are represented by other unions.

Representatives from the NEA, AFT, AFSCME, SEIU and the California Teachers Association said there is no reason the freedom of public workers to advocate for better services and communities should be curtailed as part of this case:

We are disappointed that at a time when big corporations and the wealthy few are rewriting the rules in their favor, knocking American families and our entire economy off-balance, the Supreme Court has chosen to take a case that threatens the fundamental promise of America—that if you work hard and play by the rules you should be able to provide for your family and live a decent life. 

The Supreme Court is revisiting decisions that have made it possible for people to stick together for a voice at work and in their communities—decisions that have stood for more than 35 years—and that have allowed people to work together for better public services and vibrant communities.

Government employees are not the enemy. They are just hardworking Americans doing what they can to keep a roof over their head and food on the table. Powerful interests are trying to demagogue these workers for their own political gain. Workers represented by unions shouldn't lose one of their only vehicles they have to fight for their rights.