WEA Republican Educators Caucus

Friedrichs, ET.AL., v. CTA, ET.AL. will be heard by the US Supreme Court during this court session. The outcome of that appeal will determine if public sector unions will continue to be viable organizations that serve their employee members.

At issue are “whether Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977) should be overruled and public-sector “agency shop” arrangements invalidated under the First Amendment” and, “whether it violates the First Amendment to require that public employees affirmatively object to subsidizing non-chargeable speech by public-sector unions, rather than requiring that employees affirmatively consent to subsidizing such speech. “

“Agency shop” is a statutory arrangement in which all employees hired into a particular public service and who will benefit from the services of the union, which is the sole bargaining unit for those employees, must pay a “fair share” fee as a condition of their employment. Washington state has such an “agency shop” statute. If declared unConstitutional by the Supreme Court, such statutes would disappear and employees not wishing to pay union dues or agency fees could withdraw, while still benefiting from the contracts and services provided by the union. “Abood v. Detroit Board of Education” ruled that such statutes were legal, Constitutional, and binding.

Unions in general and NEA in particular are designed to be democratically run institutions. Local elections select shop stewards & building reps, council reps, and officers. State and national elections, held at conventions, select officers and hold annual policy setting meetings, attended by elected delegates. Among the policies established and enforced in that system are support for issues deemed crucial by the elected delegates and leadership and selection of political issues and candidates to support. Laws already exist that prohibit the use of union dues to support candidates, but political issues, such as initiatives and referendums may be supported with union dues.

Despite the fact that members who opposed certain issues or candidates have the same opportunity to compete in democratic elections for representatives, delegates, and officers, some seem to believe that their First Amendment rights are being violated by having to be a member of an organization that supports causes or candidates they oppose. That is the second issue in this appeal.

WEA is obliged to obtain affirmative consent for membership in WEAPAC right now. No one belongs to WEAPAC that has not volunteered for that membership. In some election cycles, WEA has transferred union dues money to WEAPAC for support of issues, like opposition to the Charter Schools Initiative. That money is not used for candidates, but does free up other money that could be used for candidates.

If you are interested in learning more about NEA’s respondent’s brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Friedrichs v. CTA, go to this web address:
http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/Union_Respondents_Brief_-_as_Filed_11-6-15.pdf

www.nea.org