Scalia's death impacts a case for the first time

[NJlonghorn]

In Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, a teacher had been forced to pay dues to a teacher's union for the non-political portion of the union's dues. This practice has long been upheld by the courts, including SCOTUS, but it was widely believed that SCOTUS would vote 5-4 to overturn the precedent on First Amendment grounds. Scalia's death changed that, and the Court issued a one-sentence opinion this morning with a 4-4 deadlock. The opinion leaves in place the Ninth Circuit's decision, which had upheld the forced-dues rule.

This is the first of roughly 4-6 cases that will be impacted by Scalia's death. This will probably cause both sides of the Senate to dig in over Merrick Garland's nomination to the Court.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I'm glad. I think the Ninth Circuit got this right.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I'm glad. I think the Ninth Circuit got this right.

I'm not a legal scholar but I've never been a supporter of policies that force anyone to pay union dues even though they are not a union member. Yes, I understand they get the benefit of the collective bargaining. Then again, I'm not a fan of collective bargaining either.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I'm not a legal scholar but I've never been a supporter of policies that force anyone to pay union dues even though they are not a union member. Yes, I understand they get the benefit of the collective bargaining. Then again, I'm not a fan of collective bargaining either.

SH,

I'm going to bed, but tomorrow I'll explain why I think this is OK and generally oppose right to work laws.

 

[Statalyzer]

I'm not a legal scholar but I've never been a supporter of policies that force anyone to pay union dues even though they are not a union member.

Ditto. And this isn't even an anti-union position, just a people should be able to choose for themselves position.

 

[Mr. Deez]

SH and Statalyzer,

I'm not sure if you guys fully understand what the issue was in this case, but it wasn't about employees being required to pay for a union's political activities against their will. Most people agree that they shouldn't have to do that. It was about whether or not a public employee who's represented by a union should have to pay so-called "agency fees" to share the costs associated with the union's representation and its negotiation of the collective bargaining agreement that protects the employee. The Supreme Court has allowed this for 40 years. (Link.) I'm not a hack for unions by any means, but I'm not for letting people freeload off of them either. I also don't see a reason to overturn precedent to fix something that isn't broken.

I'm also not a big fan of right to work laws (a related topic), because frankly, they're not conservative economic policy. If you think they are, go read a right to work law. You'll see that they invalidate certain types of contract, and they do not authorize the person who refuses to join the union the right to individually negotiate his own pay. That's a myth. A fundamental conservative economic principle is that people and businesses have freedom of contract, especially when they have similar degrees of bargaining power. A RTW law essentially sets aside that principle just to screw with unions by letting people freeload off of them.