Longtime labor leader Henry Nicholas breathed a sigh of
relief Tuesday, when the U.S. Supreme Court deadlocked, thereby retaining
public unions' abilities to collect mandatory fees in many states, including
Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
It was a sigh, but not a deep one.
Waiting to exhale might be a better description - for
both unions and their management foes, as they shift their focus from the legal
landscape to the political.
"The next president of the U.S. will appoint four
judges for life," said Nicholas, president of the National Union of
Hospital and Healthcare Employees District 1199C. "If the White House ends
up in the wrong hands, it will be a victory short-lived."
Court observers had expected the justices to rule 5-4 in
favor of abolishing so-called fair-share fees to cover the cost of collective
bargaining and representation, with U.S. Supreme Court Antonin Scalia among the
five.
When Scalia died in February, the court lost its
conservative tipping point, opening the way for the 4-4 ruling in the case of a
California public school teacher who had objected to paying union dues when she
wasn't a member of the union.
Teacher Rebecca Friedrichs and some fellow educators said
they'd petition the court to hear the case again when there are nine justices
seated.
Meanwhile, the Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, a
Virginia-based national group that provides free legal help to employees who
feel oppressed by unions, is moving five related cases through appellate
courts.
"Are forced dues constitutional?" asked Patrick
Semmens, a spokesman. "Can a government employee be required to pay dues
and fees to a union as a condition for working for a state government? We think
they shouldn't have to pay."
The Friedrichs case concerns what is known as "fair
share" or "agency" fees, intended to cover collective bargaining
and grievance expenses. These "fair share" fees are paid by employees
who are represented by unions but aren't dues-paying members. The fees help
cover the cost of collective bargaining, but cannot be used for political
purposes, according to the 1977 Supreme Court decision, Abood v. Detroit Board
of Education, which first authorized the payments.
Union members' dues, by contrast, do cover political
activities and lobbying.
In Southeastern Pennsylvania, state employee union
members, including corrections officers, municipal clerical workers, crossing
guards and custodians, pay AFSCME union dues equivalent to 1.5 percent of their
base salary.
Non-member public employees pay 1 percent, said Tom
Tosti, the director of AFSCME District Council 88, which represents 14,000
public employees.
"The whole thing behind Friedrichs was to weaken
organized labor, especially in the public sector, where more workers belong to
unions," he said.
"The way I look at it is we are the last line of
defense," he said. These cases are "a way to take away our voices -
standing up for the middle class."
Ironically, he said, the employees who pay agency fees,
not union dues, often tend to be the ones who use the union's grievance
assistance the most.
"It's like going to a lawyer and saying, 'I don't
want to pay,' " he said.
The issue of dues is involved in two cases - one state
and one federal - in Pennsylvania, where public school teachers who object to
unions on religious grounds are allowed to pay their agency fees to a charity
mutually agreed on by the union and the employee.
One possible charity is a nonprofit that advocates for
right-to-work, anti-union stances. So, not surprisingly, the Pennsylvania State
Education Association doesn't agree.
"Shouldn't they be able to spend their money where
they want it to go?" asked King of Prussia lawyer Karin Sweigart,
assistant general counsel at the Fairness Center, a legal nonprofit
representing individuals who say they have been unjustly treated by public
unions.
The Friedrichs decision "preserves an important
revenue stream for public-sector unions, and deals a blow to those who had
hoped to lessen labor's influence in public employment settings and
beyond," said management lawyer Rich Grimaldi, a partner at Fisher &
Phillips LLP in Radnor.
In Philadelphia, when Nicholas saw the Friedrichs case
moving through the court system, he quickly set a strategy in motion at Temple
University Hospital and Temple University, where District 1199C represents
service and clerical employees.
Starting in November, "I had five people working
round the clock on this," he said, trying to convince agency employees
similar to Rebecca Friedrichs - covered by a contract, but not dues-paying
members - to join the union.
If the case had gone the other way, Nicholas would have
lost nearly half a million dollars in annual dues, he said.
"We flipped 327 [agency employees] and we have 17
left," Nicholas said. "We are satisfied that we will have 100 percent
soon."
Source: Philly.com
No comments:
Post a Comment