Posted on 04/01/2016 12:57:35 PM PDT by willowsdale
The two sides in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, the closely watched U.S. legal case in which a 4-4 U.S. Supreme Court barely upheld a 39-year-old precedent regarding the constitutionality of forced union fees as a job condition in the government sector on March 29, seemed bitterly divided. And they were, for the most part.
But on one important matter in Friedrichs, by the time oral arguments were heard in January, there was no longer any dispute between the plaintiffs – 10 independent-minded Golden State educators – and the respondents – the officers of the National Education Association (NEA) union and its California subsidiary along with California Attorney General Kamala Harris.
In their September 2015 merits brief to the High Court, the plaintiffs drew upon passages in the NEA Handbook that are largely intended to give marching orders to the agents of NEA union subsidiaries who negotiate contracts with school districts to make the case that the respondent unions “advocate numerous policies that affirmatively harm [many] teachers … .”
Specifically, wrote a team of attorneys led by Michael Carvin of the Cleveland-based law firm Jones Day: “NEA considers any ‘system of compensation based on an evaluation of an education employee’s performance’ to be ‘inappropriate’ and ‘opposes providing additional compensation to attract and/or retain education employees in hard-to-recruit positions.’”
Teachers who “care more about rewarding merit than protecting mediocre teachers” should “oppose these policies,” concluded the Friedrichs plaintiffs. And “teachers who specialize in difficult subjects (like chemistry or physics), but are trapped in union-obtained pay systems that stop them from out-earning gym teachers,” should also oppose those policies.
In the reply briefs they filed in November 2015, neither teacher union bosses nor Ms. Harris, both of whom were arguing in favor of forced union fees, contested the fact that many teachers get paid less due to union monopoly bargaining. And Ms. Harris actually confirmed in her own brief that union officials “do have substantial latitude to advance bargaining positions that … run counter to the economic interests of some employees.”
After the Friedrichs oral arguments concluded fewer than three months ago, High Court observers overwhelmingly expected a 5-4 decision stating that statutes authorizing union officials to get teachers and other public servants fired for refusal to bankroll a union they would never voluntarily join violate the First Amendment. But once Antonin Scalia, one of the five justices who were expected to side with the plaintiffs, passed away on February13, a deadlocked court became the expected outcome.
And indeed, on Tuesday, a one-sentence-long Friedrichs opinion confirmed that, as a consequence of a 4-4 split among the eight justices, Big Labor bosses will continue to be able to force public employees who aren’t union members to pay union “agency” fees, or be fired.
Union chiefs across America are now celebrating their Friedrichs victory, and that is their prerogative. But they should be honest about what they are celebrating – a decision affirming that public educators may be terminated for refusing to pay fees to a union official so he or she can oppose efforts by a school district to offer them “additional compensation” based on their teaching talent and/or their field of expertise.
In the wake of this frustrating Friedrichs outcome, the National Right to Work Committee and other citizens’ groups will keep intensifying their efforts to add to the number of state laws (now 26) barring forced union dues and fees, and ultimately to pass through Congress a law revoking Big Labor’s federally granted compulsory-fee privileges.
And the Committee’s sister organization, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation (whose 2012 and 2014 High Court victories in Knox v. SEIU and Harris v. Quinn, respectively, paved the way for Friedrichs) will be fighting ceaselessly to get more constitutional challenges to forced union financial support before the Supreme Court.
Moreover, from now on, thanks to the Friedrichs record, state and federal lawmakers and federal judges won’t be able to deny what routinely happens under the status quo: Employees are forced to pay money to unions that hurt them economically, on pain of losing their jobs. As this simple truth becomes more and more difficult for anyone to deny, compulsory unionism will become less and less sustainable.
SCOTUS is EXEMPT along with the Staff and families.
There are TWO (2) Americans.
The ruling class and Moslems who are EXEMPT
and the slave (organ-donor, servant) class.
and the criminal illegals they ruling class is
bringing in by the jet load to murder and rape
the servant class.
Zardoz?
Union chiefs “should be honest
Should have stopped there. The case result made possible by the Fantasifascist Four on the USSC is no surprise.
Unions funnel A LOT of cash into the Democrat Party.
Cue the Scalia conspiracy theories.
Employers can force an employee to buy safety glasses and shoes, for example. Refusal would mean you are not allowed to perform your job.
I still think Scalia was murdered. Too much of a coincidence...timing perfect. Such a demand for no autopsy. His family may have been blackmailed or threatened or convinced not to go ahead with it. He had already written the majority opinion for this case. SAD
Let’s look at that. Employers and demand employees to get, say a flu vaccine. Or an employer can demand that an employee buy (or use safety equipment. In the first instance the employer is protecting their clients (patients) from exposure to a virus that might cause them harm. In the second instance the employer is trying to protect themselves from being sued by the employee for not protecting them from some hazard. In case number one the patient has no control over what they are being exposed to, and I would argue the the employer has the right to demand the the employee get vaccinated. In the second instance the employee knows the risks and if he/she elects to take that risk it is their responsibility. they should be made to sign a waver but after that their on their own.
No surprise. We are living in communists America.
I'm with ya.
Either way there is a potential for being sued if the employee fails to comply and either infects co-workers or neglects to purchase and wear safety shoes.
Reasonable requirements I don't have a problem with purchasing. Vaccinations, I would still want to refuse. It all would come down to how badly I want to keep my job.
I have all my childhood vaccinations and before I had a chance to refuse I got a booster tetanus shot. I saw to it my children received all their vaccinations while they were in my care. To some extent I've let myself get spooked by the anti-vax crowd. And my chiropractic cousin turned to homeopathy, also my chiropractic neighbor whose kids were healthy as horses and were not allowed to receive vaccinations. So my daughter and I talk about it in front of my grandson who told his school that I didn't believe in vaccinations (which isn't totally true but let the school think what they want about me, I don't care, I'm not his guardian). My daughter asks me if she should let him get one. I said it is not fair of me to influence you, I will not say, you do what you think is right. So he got it. You can refuse in our schools but it will be more and more trouble for people to do so.
I think I did mention to my daughter that if she refused her son permission to get a vaccination, the school would probably make trouble for her.
Teachers could just strike.
I support teachers, and especially good teachers. I know that in any field, you’ll have those who are better, those who are average, and those who are worse. Then you’ll have those who are criminal. Obviously, the latter group should have an easy means of getting them out of teaching.
The group of incompetent teachers should have some means of identifying and removing them, but it should be a system that is not based on the whim of an administrator, since personality conflicts and the possibility of extortion does exist.
The tension between average and good will always exist in any career field.
People who don’t like public education should support private education and quit belly-aching. Let the market place work it out. STrive to change tax laws and enable private school parents to exempt education expenses from their income and/or have themselves declared exempt from public school taxation if they are pursing private education.
That is the best way to fight mediocre teachers and schools.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.