Tied 4-4 after Scalia’s death, high court gives unions a win
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., right, met with Judge Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s choice to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court, becoming the only Republican senator to meet the embattled nominee, today, on Capitol Hill in Washington. Kirk is perhaps the most endangered Senate Republican facing re-election in November and he’s one of just three Senate Republicans to say the Senate Judiciary Committee should hold hearings on Garland, over the insistence of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Ky., who has ruled it out.
Rebecca Friedrichs, a veteran Orange County, Calif., public school teacher. A tie vote from the Supreme Court today meant public sector unions in about half the states can continue collecting fees from workers who choose not to join. The justices today divided 4-4 in a case that considered whether public employees represented by a union can be required to pay “fair share” fees covering collective bargaining costs even if they are not members. (Greg Schneider/Courtesy of the Center for Individual Rights via AP)
WASHINGTON » In the clearest sign yet of the impact of Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, U.S. labor unions scored a major victory today with a tie vote in a high-profile Supreme Court case they had once seemed all but certain to lose.
The 4-4 split, in a case that sharply divided the court’s liberal union supporters and their conservative opponents, demonstrated how much is riding on President Barack Obama’s effort to replace Scalia with a judge who could tilt the balance on the high court for years to come. Senate Republicans say they won’t consider any nomination until a new president takes office.
The vacancy helped the liberals this time. The deadlocked vote came in a case that considered whether unions representing government employees can collect fees from workers who choose not to join. California teachers backed by a conservative group said being forced to pay union fees violated the free-speech rights of nonmembers who disagree with the union’s policy positions.
The split vote left in place an appeals court ruling that upheld the collection of “fair share” fees from nonmembers.
The result was an unlikely reprieve for organized labor. It had seemed virtually certain that the high court would rule 5-4 to overturn a system that’s been in place nearly 40 years. But the court now is operating with only eight justices after the Feb. 13 death of Scalia, who had been expected to rule against the unions.
The one-sentence opinion issued today did not identify how each justice voted. It simply upheld a decision from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
But it was a blow to conservative groups that have spent years pushing the court to overrule a 1977 precedent that allows unions to collect fees from members and non-members alike to cover the costs of collective bargaining.
Union officials feared a ruling barring the fees would threaten membership and further weaken the clout of unions, which are major supporters of Democratic candidates and causes. Labor leaders called the lawsuit part of a coordinated effort by conservative groups to weaken labor rights.
The tie vote came amid a political standoff over Obama’s nomination of appeals court judge Merrick Garland to fill Scalia’s vacant seat. Garland was meeting today with Republican Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk, his first meeting with a GOP senator.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the 4-4 tie rather than a majority ruling “is not what our founders intended.”
But conservative groups said the split underscored the risk of replacing Scalia with someone more liberal. Confirming Garland would make the court “a rubber stamp not just for the wishes of powerful labor unions, but also for virtually the entire progressive agenda,” said Curt Levey, executive director of the FreedomWorks Foundation.
The union case is just one among a handful of key disputes this term in which Scalia’s vote had been expected to tip the balance toward a conservative result. During arguments in the case in January, Scalia and the court’s four other conservatives had made it clear they were prepared to deal a blow to the unions.
Since Supreme Court decisions are not final until they’re handed down, nothing Scalia did or said in connection with the case before his death mattered in the outcome.
A similar split between the court’s liberals and conservatives was evident last week when the justices heard appeals from faith-based groups objecting to an Obama administration effort to ensure their employees and students can get cost-free birth control. The court today directed both sides to file a new round of legal briefs exploring a possible compromise, setting an April 20 deadline
In the union dispute, the high court had twice before raised doubts about the 1977 precedent, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. In that case, the court said public workers who choose not to join a union can be required to pay for bargaining costs as long as the fees don’t go toward political purposes.
In 2014, a 5-4 majority stopped short of overturning the case, but the court’s conservatives seemed to invite another full-on challenge.
The lead plaintiff in the latest case was Rebecca Friedrichs, a public school teacher from Orange County, California, who said she resigned from the California Teachers Association over differences but was still required to pay about $650 a year to cover bargaining costs.
Union officials have worried that the potential loss of tens of millions of dollars in fees would reduce their power to bargain for higher wages and benefits for government employees. More than 5 million workers in 23 states and Washington, D.C., are required to pay fair-share fees to public-sector unions that represent them in bargaining. Unions say the fees are necessary because the organization has a legal duty to represent all teachers, even those who are not members of the union.
Associated Press writer Darlene Superville contributed to this report.
19 responses to “Tied 4-4 after Scalia’s death, high court gives unions a win”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Outstanding win for organizational (Union) rights. As a public sector union member, you can still remain outside your public sector union as a non-union member. But, your wages and benefits negotiated by the union remains yours, and you must pay your fair share for negotiations.
“negotiations”? Really? You mean “strong-arming”, “Threats”, and “Personal Intimidations”, etc…
Then the employer should not budge. The problem with that is in certain occupations, how replaceable the worker is becomes the bargaining chip. That’s why for the life of me, I can’t understand how low skilled workers can “strong arm” anyone. What the union does, is combines those workers with other workers of hard to replace occupations. As for the teachers, at least they stand on their own merits or “value”. But the whole point of the suit was so people could opt out of paying union dues. I say go for it, as long as you negotiate your own wages and benefits and have your rights protected by your private attorney.
Farkward, the challenge with public sector unions and their “power” is who approves the negotiated contract. At present, the administration negotiates and the legislature approves. Why not work with the public sector unions to approve a 3rd Party, appointed jointly by the administration (3), public (3), and public sector unions (3) approve the negotiated agreement instead of the legislature? Or, establish a system similar to the Federal System where wages and benefits are not part of the negotiations.
I fully understand and respect your two (2) points written above. I am not in any specific way “Anti-Union”, per se. At one time, I sat between Art Rutledge and Larry Mehau at the “Bargaining-Tables” in The Ilikai Hotel Ballroom (then considered a “neutral-territory”). At this time, I am more concerned about the influences on the SCOTUS-JUDGES and decisions that may be compelled by unethical constraints. Recently, I was privy to similar matters regarding “Stevedores” (very “Spooky”). In the past matters of “Local-5”, I am not satisfied that this Union, in any way–served it’s members; e.g. The Ilikai Hotel, on the pretense of a “remodel”. In that matter, there exists an underlying “Building-Covenant” which compels that there be a certain number of “Hotel Units” and related Operations–not just Condominium Units, at the time of receiving it’s initial “Building and Use Permits” (as agreed by Chin Ho). Yet “Hundreds” of Employees lost their jobs and many Benefits. I don’t think that’s what these Employees expected when they paid “there Dues” (many–more than 20+ years of service). Local-5 did not defend these employees, and instead, hid behind a San Francisco Law Firms advice.
In my pizza restaurant, we are reminded by Chinese owners that we are just “fresh meat” to be cast aside at any time.
An allie pizza?
scary
Why keep on working for them? Must be treated right and earn enough,plus all u can eat?
Oh, sooo true. And you also get the glorious opportunity for the union to use your money for political lobbying on positions you may or may not support.
It appears a Higher Power cast the deciding vote, reversing Scalia.
..and, that’s the same “Higher Power” that Elects The Presidents (and, I’m not talking about “Divine-Intervention”).
..and, there goes the last “glimmer of hope” for any INTEGRITY in our Legal System…
This should be reheard when the full 9 are present but this forced association should have no part in a free society. BTW, there is very little value in the poor negotiation skills of union leaders. I prefer the private sector any day for better pay and way better benefits. Shame on the 4 members who continue this support of bought politicians who passed laws requiring forced association. Also shouldn’t unions have to re-certify every year or every contract? How is it that shops voted decades ago and current employees are the ones forced into membership?
There are two reasonable options here. First, the present situation which the Court declined to overturn. Second, that those who choose not to join the union also take a pass on the salaries, benefits and seniority rules negotiated by the union.
It’s simply unfair for them to expect to get a free ride by taking advantage of the same working conditions for which unions spend much time, effort and money promoting and negotiating. That’s not a viable option. It makes them no better than freeloaders.
I think the problem is the unions that have a political bias, which they exercise using the funds collected. If it were just negotiations, then perhaps it would not be so objectionable. As it is, the nonmembers feel they are being forced to support a political view point that is not their own.
from what I understand, unions can’t use dues for political purposes at all already. They lobby lawmakers with private donations. What these people suing are claiming is that lawmakers fund salaries paid to employees with government funds, therefore anything related to government employees is inherently political. to me, that’s a huge stretch, but that’s just my opinion.
Scalia said that corporations have rights to make contributions and enter into political affairs. Let’s apply that to unions too. Let Unions incorporate and have the same rights of political expression as corporations do. Let’s be consistent with what Scalia ruled.
Let me see – Union dues charged to non Union members. Sort of like paying for Steak at a Grocery Store when you are only buying Potatoes. I am Not against Unions, Local-5 and Rutldege, (not Art) Helped my wife when her Employer tried to Illegally release her.