|
 The legal fight pits a small group of teachers and the Christian
Educators Association International (CEAI) against the influential
California Teachers Association, a union with 325,000 members and a
history of backing liberal political causes.
The two groups also were on opposite sides of the 2008 anti-gay
marriage Proposition 8 ballot initiative in California, which
temporarily blocked same-sex marriage in the state.
The new case could erode labor influence by allowing public workers
to stop paying dues to unions, reducing their income and political
clout. Such a ruling would apply in 25 states that do not already
have “right-to-work” laws, which say workers may not be compelled to
join a union.
The lawsuit alleges that California law violates non-union workers’
free-speech rights by requiring them to pay "agency fees" toward
collective bargaining activities. The 2013 suit highlights the
teachers union's involvement in gay rights issues as an example of
the type of advocacy some teachers do not want to support.
 Rebecca Friedrichs, the lead plaintiff in the case, said in an
interview that when teachers saw union-backed advertisements during
the Proposition 8 campaign proclaiming teachers’ support for gay
marriage, some had the same reaction: "Wait a minute. I don't
remember giving my permission."
Friedrichs, an experienced elementary school teacher in Anaheim who
quit the union in 2012, said she doesn't have a "strong opinion one
way or another" on gay marriage but believes the union shouldn't be
involved in such issues.
She and the nine other non-union teachers who joined the lawsuit are
asking the high court to overturn a 1977 decision that allowed
public-sector unions to collect fees from workers who do not want
representation, as long as the money is not spent on political
activities. The ruling prevented so-called “free riders,” non-union
workers who benefit from wage and other workplace improvements
achieved through collective bargaining without contributing to the
union.
A ruling in favor of the teachers would be a blow to organized labor
because unionized teachers and other civil servants in states
without right-to-work laws comprise its main power base.
Among public sector workers, 35.7 percent belong to unions, compared
to 6.6 percent in the private sector, according to the U.S. Bureau
of Labor Statistics. Roughly three-quarters of America’s estimated
7.2 million public-sector union members are in non-right-to-work
states.
If the plaintiffs win, Benjamin Sachs, a professor at Harvard Law
School, said he would expect to see more workers stop paying for
union representation. "That would create a profound free-rider
problem for all public unions," he said.
[to top of second column] |
DIVISION OVER GAY RIGHTS
Six of the teachers that joined the lawsuit are members of CEAI.
According to its website, the group "supports the Biblical view of
traditional marriage" and criticizes the National Education
Association for its "support of the Homosexual Agenda."
In 2008, CEAI was part of a coalition that supported the Proposition
8 campaign to ban gay marriage in California, while the state
teachers' union contributed $1.25 million to the unsuccessful effort
to defeat the initiative.
CEAI's executive director Finn Laursen said in an interview that
left-leaning unions are out of sync with many Christian teachers.
Even when political activities are excluded, the California union
gives gifts and grants to organizations that are "not in tune" with
Christian values, including gay rights groups, he added.
The lawsuit calls out examples of expenses - including a gay and
lesbian program and a conference - that the union lists as
"chargeable" to its collective bargaining budget, which non-members
pay into. It is difficult to distinguish between spending for the
union's political activity and its collective bargaining work, said
Michael Carvin, the conservative lawyer who will argue the case for
the plaintiffs.
"The kind of things they can require plaintiffs to pay for, they are
just as important as a matter of public concern and just as
ideological as things they can’t charge them for. We don’t see any
real distinction," Carvin said.
In court papers, the union argues that any infringement on free
speech is justified by the state’s interest in managing employees
and, in any event, is ameliorated by allowing non-union workers to
opt out of paying for political spending.
The union's president, Eric Heins, defended its political stances,
saying in an interview that positions on issues ranging from gay
rights to school funding are decided only after an internal
democratic process.
"It's a political attack," he said of the lawsuit. "It's nothing to
do with improving education for kids."
(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Lisa Girion)
[© 2016 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.]
Copyright 2016 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |
