What Trump means for teachers union

Good morning. Happy three-day week. He hasn’t even picked his team yet, but everyone is trying to figure out what a Trump presidency will mean. While it may not be immediately apparent, Trump’s victory a few weeks ago has deep implications for the balance of political power in California.

Because of his win, there could soon be a fifth vote on the U. S. Supreme Court – again – to conclude that teachers at California public schools can’t be compelled to pay union dues to the California Teachers Association in support of political activities with which they disagree.

These dues have made the CTA arguably the most powerful force in state politics, able to win passage of bills increasing taxpayer funding for the state teachers’ pension system, protecting teachers’ jobs and making it difficult for their performance to be evaluated. 

At a January hearing in the Friedrichs v. CTA case, five justices – conservatives Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito and libertarian swing voter Anthony Kennedy – appeared poised to allow teachers to opt out of CTA dues.

But in February, Scalia died. In March, the court deadlocked 4-4 on the case, and in June, it declined to hear the case again in the term that began in October.

Trump has promised to appoint a justice with Scalia-like views as his replacement. That presumably would mean five votes to put limits on what public employee union dues could be used for.

CalWatchdog has more. 

In other news:

• “At a moment of unprecedented dominance in California, Democrats woke up on Election Day to a painfully changed national landscape, raising sharp questions about how poorly their approach to outsized success on the west coast is translating in vast swaths of the nation’s interior,” writes CalWatchdog.

• “Wind and solar power proponents hope to appeal to Republican President-elect Donald Trump’s desire for economic growth to persuade him to support their industries. Their business means jobs, they say, and the president-elect promised lots of new jobs.” The San Bernardino County Sun has more. 

• The Sacramento Bee looks at six areas where Trump and CA may frequently clash. 

• Gov. Brown may be the face of opposition in CA against Trump, but he hasn’t fully embraced the role yet, writes Politico. 

Legislature:

• Gone till December. 

Gov. Brown:

• No public events announced.

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mflemingterp

New follower: @djkingassassin

sushiesque / flickr

With Friedrichs v. CTA pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, stakeholders and spectators alike are curious to see not only the outcome of the court case, but also the greater implications tied to union membership and influence in legislative bodies throughout the country.

The Center for Individual Rights, the organization representing the 10 California teachers that filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, has listed two potential outcomes for the Friedrichs case, if the court sides with the plaintiffs:

“Friedrichs v. CTA raises the fundamental question whether a state can require public employees to join a union as a condition of employment. If the Court rules that this practice violates the First Amendment’s guarantees of free speech and free association, it would be binding on all fifty states.  Effectively, such a decision would convert the twenty-six states that now require union membership into open-shop states.

 

“If the Supreme Court does not accept our argument that compulsory dues violates the First Amendment, then, as a fallback position … [w]e urge the Court to rule that the First Amendment requires the unions to employ an “opt-in” system.  Instead of requiring teachers to apply for a refund, an “opt-in” system would require the unions to secure the affirmative decision of a teacher to support union political activities before withholding dues for that purpose.”

Right-to-work effects in other states

Right-to-work movements have gained momentum across the nation. In March, Wisconsin became the 25th open-shop state, passing a law that would disallow workers from being forced to join labor unions or pay union dues in order to keep a job. “Wisconsin now has the freedom to work,” said Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. “That is one more powerful tool as we help create not just jobs but career opportunities for many years to come.”

Such laws impacted union membership significantly. AFSCME, the Wisconsin government employee union based in Madison, saw membership drop from 32,000 in 2011 to 13,000 in 2014. Union revenue was slashed nearly in half, from $10 million annually to $5.5 million.

In Michigan, where a right-to-work law passed in 2012, union membership fell sharply in 2014, the first full year after the law took effect in 2013. According to the Bureau Labor of Statistics, overall union membership of wage and salary workers declined from 16.3 percent of the population in 2013 to 14.5 percent in 2014. Michigan-based media group MLive reported in January, “Union membership dropped from approximately 633,000 Michigan workers in 2013 to 585,000 in 2014 even as the total state employment numbers grew.”

Union leaders say they have yet to see the promised economic benefits as a result of right-to-work laws. “Michigan has not been this great success story,” Amy Davis-Comstock of the SEIU in Michigan told ThinkProgress. “If businesses are doing so well, why do we have this huge budget deficit now? We don’t have new industries coming in. We don’t have employers vying for the unemployed workers we have here. We’ve been waiting to see what jobs have even been created, and a lot of them are in sectors like hospitality and retail, which are not living wage jobs, and usually have no benefits.”

But Forbes contributor Mark Hendrickson says protests about right-to-work laws are only coming from union leaders, “whose lucrative monopoly privileges are being revoked,” and Democratic politicians, “who have long benefited from the massive flow of forced-union dues into their campaign coffers.”

Union influence on a steady decline

Business leaders and academics in Michigan admit not much has changed, though they acknowledge that the influence of organized labor in the state had already been in a steady decline over the past five decades. Patrick Anderson, CEO of Anderson economic group, told Michigan Radio the law ultimately sends a message “that Michigan has become a much friendlier state for employers.” But Charles Ballard, an economics professor at Michigan State University, said there has not been evidence that “the passage of the right-to-work law has led to an increase in job creation within the state.” This is because, right-to-work was not a sudden shift, but “merely a ratification of what had been going on for a long time.”

Perhaps that is why, last year, the CTA distributed a memo highlighting plans to prepare for a future where union dues were no longer compulsory.

According to California Policy Center, California’s public sector unions collect and spend more than $1.1 billion per year, with at least $250 million of those funds going straight to political expenditures including, lobbying, campaign contributions and independent expenditures. If current law is overturned, and California union membership and revenue follow trends in other right-to-work states, union influence in Sacramento would be greatly diminished.

According to CIR, the briefing and oral argument for the Friedrichs case will be scheduled for the fall of 2015, with a decision likely delivered by June 2016.

Under that ruling, employees may get a refund on dues specifically identified as going for political purposes. But attorneys for Rebecca Friedrichs argue that the CTA’s history shows all its dues are essentially used for political ends. Friedrichs opposes much of the CTA’s agenda, starting with the union’s strong support of far-reaching teacher job protections and the relatively quick granting of tenure.

The case has the potential to shake up California’s political climate. The CTA and the California Federation of Teachers give more money to candidates and causes than any other entity and are considered to have more influence over the state Legislature than any other groups. Based on what’s happened in other states, the CTA and CFT could lose one-third of all dues if Friedrichs succeeds and mandatory assessments are no longer allowed.

‘Not if, but when’ present law is overruled

What’s striking about this case is that the CTA appears to already assume it’s going to lose. In July of last year, the union distributed a 23-page memo discussing a post-Friedrichs world at a meeting of local district union leaders. Its title: “Not if, but when: Living in a world without Fair Share.” (“Fair Share” is how the CTA describes the law mandating all teachers pay “agency fees.”)

The memo ends with an upbeat tone:

CTA Will Be Ready!

 

Over the years, CTA has responded to many attacks and crises that have threatened to dismantle our organization and our core belief that every child in California deserves a first-class education. By and far, we have prevailed because of the organizational strength of our membership, the efforts of our talented staff, and our shared commitment to our mission to protect and promote the well-being of our members and to improve the conditions of teaching and learning in California.

 

Planning, organizing and preparedness will ensure our continued organizational strength and survival and help us adapt to an ever-changing environment.

Nevertheless, the reasons for the CTA’s fatalism are plain. Friedrichs v. CTA got to the Supreme Court in much speedier fashion than many cases. At least four justices supported bringing it before the high court for review, and one has already made his views plain:

Twice, Associate Justice Samuel Alito has stated in opinions of recent years that Abood v. Detroit Board of Ed., the 1977 case that established the constitutionality of fair share fees, was shaky. In a 2014 opinion in Harris v. Quinn, Alito said that precedent was “questionable on several grounds.”

That’s from Politico.