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.

More videos from Calle’s interview with Walker will be released soon.

By John Seiler

California Republicans seeking to get back in the game should look to Michigan. The big issue there now is advancing a right-to-work law. Given Michigan’s heavy union representation, especially by the powerful UAW, the issue would seem to be a non-starter. Yet it’s advancing:

“Unions lost big in Michigan in November when voters rejected Proposal 2, Big Labor’s plan to canonize collective bargaining in the state constitution. Now they are facing a backlash with the happy possibility that Michigan could become the 24th right-to-work state.”

Things actually should be more promising in California. In Michigan, the UAW, Teamsters and other unions primarily operate in the private sector. Although they have made inroads in the public sector; and the Michigan Education Association, like the California Teachers Association part of the ultra-powerful National Education Association, has a lot of clout in the Great Lake State.

Private-sector union members actually make things, such as cars and steel. And there’s a voluntary element. If you don’t like the UAW, you don’t have to buy a Ford, Chrysler or GM car. By contrast, with the government unions, which dominate in California, you have no choice except to move. As long as you live in California, you’re their taxpayer/slave.

Just last month, California unions defeated Proposition 32, which would have limited the unions’ ability to lift donations directly from member paychecks. The campaign successfully branded Prop. 32 as benefiting special interests that would have been exempt from the initiative.

Prop. 32 was too complicated — a typical failing of Republican attempts at reform.

Right-to-work

A better idea: Just go directly at the unions by enacting right-to-work laws. That way, union membership would be entirely voluntary. The tyrannical unions couldn’t force anyone to join. The campaign could be advanced as one of freedom for workers.

And the fact is, Californians are sick of the unions running — and ruining — the state. Did the unions just get a supermajority in both houses of the Legislature for their kept Democrats? Yes, but just wait till the Dems bust the budget in a couple of month — blowing all the $6 billion in higher taxes from Proposition 30, and then some.

And wait till the Prop. 30 tax increases — and the Obamacare tax increases, and the Fiscal Cliff tax increases — throw us into another recession.

In Michigan, Democrats once ruled the roost. The last time a Republican won the state’s electoral votes was George H.W. Bush, running on Reagan’s coattails, way back in 1988. Michiganders just voted 54 percent to 45 percent for President Obama, even though Mitt Romney grew up there and his father was governor in the 1960s. (California voted 60-37 for Obama.) Which is another indication of the ineptness of the Romney campaign.

But in Michigan, the governor now is Republican; the state Senate has a 26-12 Republican majority and the state House a 64-46 Republican majority.

Republicans usually come from business backgrounds and like to make “deals,” as they’re trying to do now with Obama over the “fiscal cliff.” But sometimes you have run right at your opponents. In 1981, Reagan jump started his domestic agenda by firing striking air traffic controllers.

Golden State Republicans should remember: No guts, no glory.

By Brian Calle and Josephine Djuhana

It should come as no surprise that the economic growth rates and prosperity for states with excessive regulations and taxes are much lower when compared to states with fewer regulations and modest taxes. Incentives, such as low taxes and humble regulations, attract business and investment, which in turn spur economic benefits and job growth. It is not Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, “it’s just good economics,” as Arthur Laffer, noted economist and economic advisor to former President Ronald Reagan, likes to say.

California lawmakers ought to take note.

Laffer’s new book, “Eureka! How to Fix California,” was commissioned by the Pacific Research Institute, CalWatchDog.com’s parent think tank. The former California resident attempts to knock some sense into the political class in Sacramento, urging policy makers to focus on good economics instead of politics as usual. He wrote the book, he said, to create a blueprint for reforming California— to put the once Golden State back on a path of prosperity.

Laffer looked at various state economic data and found some significant disparities between states that instituted progressive income tax policies versus those that did not—particularly the gap in state growth between states with income taxes and states with none.

Eleven states introduced progressive income taxes within the past fifty years—Connecticut, New Jersey, Ohio, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Maine, Illinois, Nebraska, Michigan, Indiana and West Virginia. And of the 11, all states declined as a share of the U.S. economy. Michigan’s economy, for example, was at 5.08 percent of the US economy in 2005; that percentage slid to 2.64 percent in 2010. Like Michigan, Ohio’s wealth diminished as a result of similarly poor economic policies, Laffer argues. “The only things that still look nice in Ohio are the public government buildings,” remarked Dr. Laffer, during a recent stop on his book tour in Orange County.

Laffer also explores migration patters between states with varying tax rates; comparing “right-to-work” states—states where employees retain the right to decide whether or not to join or financially support a union—and “forced unionism” states—where an individual must pay union fees as a condition of employment and has forced union representation.

Right-to-work growth

In right-to-work states, Laffer found more economic growth, while “forced union” states trended the opposite direction.

The 22 right-to-work states experienced a 52.83 percent jump in gross state product; on the other hand, the 28 “union-shop” states had a 41.72 percent gross state product growth, less than the 46.61 percent US average.

“Right-to-work” states also trumped their forced-union counterparts in personal income growth, payroll employment growth, population growth and net domestic in-migration. Part of the reason that the growth gap is so large is that employers have a tendency to move away from forced-union states, not just to scale back wages and salaries, but also to avoid intrusive union rules, lawsuits, work stoppage threats and more.

Laffer’s proposal to reform California’s tax system should come as no surprise for those who have followed his work. He calls for a flat tax for the state of California; one simple tax on net business sales, and another on personal unadjusted income. His proposal does call for keeping “sin taxes” on the books, those taxes on cigarettes, etc., that are more meant to alter behavior than to raise revenues. Those concerned with the role of government in legislating personal decisions might argue that such sin taxes ought to be ousted as well.

California’s current tax system causes much unsettling volatility in state tax income year-to-year by making budgeting at the state level often incoherent. For example, in 2001, income from capital gains taxes (and other onetime revenues) made up a quarter of state tax revenue, according to Laffer.

And California has so many taxes (Laffer stopped counting after he studied 162 of them) that the tax code is overwhelmingly and unnecessarily complex, hence Laffer’s push to simplify it.

Looking at Sacramento today, though, there appears to be no political will in the legislature or with Gov. Jerry Brown to reform the tax code and especially institute a flat tax. Laffer dismisses that, noting that, when Brown ran for president in 1992, Brown proposed a national flat tax, making it part of his platform in the Democratic primary. “He was the first prominent presidential candidate to ever propose a national flat tax,” Laffer said. Optimistically, Laffer argues that, given the right situation, Brown could be amenable.  We shall see. Brown, this time around, seems more beholden to public employee unions than during his previous stint as governor.

“Political partisanship is ruining the politics of our country,” Laffer concludes. Fixing California requires a nonpartisan effort to eliminate excessive taxes and regulations, and to create a business-friendly environment that encourages economic activity. Laffer’s blueprint, in short, challenges California politicians to put partisanship aside and embrace simple economics.