Free Riders, The First Amendment, And The 'Friedrichs' Case

Forbes ^ | January 15, 2016 | George Leef

[reaganaut1]

On Monday, January 11 the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association. The plaintiffs, teachers in California public schools, challenge the constitutionality of a rule that they must pay dues to the C.T.A. to keep their jobs, even though they don't choose to join the union and object to the way it uses money involuntarily taken from them to advance political causes they oppose.

This raises First Amendment issues, since it protects not only the right to speak freely against governmental interference, but also protects the right not to be compelled to speak. By taking dues money from these teachers and spending it on a host of political objectives, the union forces the teachers to subsidize speech they disagree with.

During the arguments, Justice Breyer asked the attorney for the teachers, Mike Carvin, how this case is different from laws that require lawyers to pay mandatory dues to state bar associations. Carvin's response turned the tables. The Court, he pointed out, has held that while lawyers can be compelled to pay dues for the regulation of the legal profession, they cannot be compelled to pay for any political or ideological activities undertaken by bar associations. (The case in point is Keller v. State Bar of California.)

The main line of defense for the union's "all teachers must pay" system is that all teachers benefit from its collective bargaining and therefore should have to pay their "fair share" through an agency fee. Unless they have to pay, teachers will be tempted to become "free riders" on the dues of others, reaping the supposed benefits without helping defray the costs. If too many try to become free riders, then union would not be able to do its job.

[AZLiberty]

The “free rider” concept assumes that the union member is actually getting a net benefit from the presence of the union. What if union practices were (1) preventing the company from succeeding to the extent it could, thus preventing it from paying its employees better, or (2) preventing individual employees from exceptional performance, thus denying them the potential of a higher paying job?

Of course now that most unions are government unions, success and performance are irrelevant, so it’s just a battle to maximize the number of dollars extracted from the taxpayer’s pocket.

[onedoug]

By taking dues money from these teachers and spending it on a host of political objectives, the union forces the teachers to subsidize speech they disagree with.

Like compelling taxpayers to subsidize abortion providers.

[T Ruth]

The main line of defense for the union's "all teachers must pay" system is that all teachers benefit from its collective bargaining . . ..

All teachers do not benefit from collective bargaining. Those teachers who are excellent and who would be paid more under a merit-pay system are harmed by collective bargaining and the union's seniority system.

[Brian Griffin]

The union could simply negotiate a contract which states:

This contract shall not apply to workers who are not paid up with respect to their union dues at the time of its completion.

However, it is my opinion is that the total amount of compensation should be set legislatively.

We are a nation that should be run by the rule of law, not by brawling on a picket line.

The union should only get to decide on dividing the legislatively set amount up on health care, salaries, retirement investment, etc.

I should add, if Obamacare is good enough for somebody in Watts, it should be good enough for every publically paid teacher in LA - equal protection of the law.

[Brian Griffin]

If leftists are truly serious about “free rider” problems, they should abolish taxation.

Let everyone pay their own way.

The Richs could pay tuition upfront.

The Poors could let their kids help pay for their teachers’ retirement after graduating from college.

My neighbors retired from the government get about $40,000 to $100,000/year.

I haven’t had enough income to pay federal income tax for years.

President Equality is a near-total failure.

[Chode]

unions are adversarial by nature to the company and try to screw it at every turn

in the case of public unions, the company is the taxpayer

ALL unions should be abolished