 Nearly 50 Republican lawmakers and former lawmakers from across the country have
signed onto a friends-of-the-court brief in the case of Friedrichs v. California
Teachers Association, which is viewed in many quarters as a battle between
unions and right-to-work advocates.
In their Nov. 13 filing, the legislators — including seven Illinois legislators
and two former state lawmakers — urge the high court justice to leave the
question of “fair-share dues” or agency fees to the states to decide.
That puts them opposite Illinois’ leading Republican, Gov. Bruce Rauner of
Winnetka, who has been a full-on supporter of abolishing mandatory union dues or
fees for state employees.
The seven current Illinois GOP lawmakers taking up the the state-choice argument
are Reps. Adam Brown of Champaign, Terri Bryant of Murphysboro, C.D. Davidsmeyer
of Jacksonville, Norine Hammond of Macomb, Dwight Kay of Glen Carbon, Bill
Mitchell of Forsyth, and Sen. Sam McCann of Springfield. Former Reps. Raymond
Poe of Springfield and Angelo “Skip” Saviano of Elmwood Park also joined in the
brief, which was prepared by the Constitutional Accountability Center of
Washington, D.C.
In the case before the court, Rebecca Friedrichs and nine other California
teachers who are not union members object to paying the fees or dues, which are
to go toward the costs of bargaining or contract administration.
They argue that being forced to pay dues is a violation of their First
Amendment-protected rights of free speech and free association.
In the recent filing, the GOP legislators make a three-pronged argument:
The First Amendment does not deprive states the power to enact agency-shop laws
requiring government employees to pay their fair share of the costs of costs of
collective bargaining.
The court has long recognized the role that federalism plays in the country’s
constitutional structure.
Consistent with the principles of federalism, states should be able to determine
for themselves whether to adopt agency-fee arrangements.
In their brief, the 48 current and former lawmakers argue “nothing in the
Constitution prohibits the agency fee arrangements at issue in this case.” They
say the decision on whether the agency fees are good policy “belongs to the
relevant state and local governments. It is also a decision on which
jurisdictions can and do differ.”
“After all, no one arrangement will make sense for every state in the country,
and state officials will be best able to weigh the potentially competing
interests of public employers, public employees, unions, and the public to
determine what makes the most sense for their state,” they write.
[to top of second column] |
 Rauner, on the other hand, opposes mandatory dues. A month into
office, he made an effort to stop state agencies from collecting the
agency fees, which he called “a clear violation of First Amendment
rights – and something that, as governor, I am duty-bound to
correct.”
In his brief before the court, filed Sept. 11, the governor argued:
The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees’
“activities funded by ‘fair share’ fees are far broader than simply
securing workplace protections and better employee compensation for
its members.
“Even those union activities that are confined to collective
bargaining have significant political
implications. Enriched by contributions from members and nonmembers
alike, public sector
unions in Illinois, whose labor and management sit on the same side
of the table, have negotiated wages and benefits that have
unrealistically kept going up while the state economy has kept going
down. The connection is hardly coincidental.”
While they may differ with Rauner on whether the high court should
strike the controlling case law when it comes to agency fees, the
Republican lawmakers who filed the Nov. 13 brief don’t argue in
favor of them — only that the decision is one Congress has
appropriately left to the states.
The legislators “take no position on the legal question whether
Congress could legislate in this area if it so chose … they believe
that Congress’s decision to allow States to structure public sector
labor relations as they see fit reflects federalism principles that
are fundamental to our constitutional structure,” according to the
brief.
Several of the Illinois lawmakers who signed onto the Nov. 13 brief
are from areas of the state with high populations of union or
government workers. They have, to date, stood with Rauner on his
agenda, although McCann did vote with state Senate Democrats on an
attempt to override Rauner’s veto of Senate Bill 1229.
The so-called “no-strike, no lockout” bill was backed by the
state’s biggest unions and most Democrats, but opposed by Rauner and
most Republican legislators. McCann said his vote represented the
will of his constituency. The override attempt fell one vote short
in the House.
Oral arguments in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association
have yet to be scheduled but will likely be set in January 2016; a
decision is not expected until mid-year.
Click here to respond to the editor about this article
|
