8 Member Supreme Court Ties; Union Wins

[newyorkguy]

A controversial case before the Supreme Court -- now with an even number of members since the death of Antonin Scalia -- ended with a 4-4 deadlock. This was a win for the defendant, a labor union representing public school teachers. Essentially a group of teachers declined to join the teacher's union but had dues deducted from their paychecks.

The union argued that without compulsory dues the unions that represent public employees would wither and die. The teachers (and the libertarian group who helped fund the case, Center for Individual Rights) argued that forcing non-union teachers to pay for collective bargaining activities for the union was a free speech violation.

During the hearing in January Justice Antonin Scalia seemed especially hostile to the union and it was expected that the ten teachers and their libertarian sponsor would prevail by a 5-4 vote. Scalia's death changed that and Tuesday the Court deadlocked 4-4. That meant a lower court's ruling -- upholding the union -- remains in place. The union was wary but elated.

“We know the wealthy extremists who pushed this case want to limit the ability for workers to have a voice, curb voting rights and restrict opportunities for women and immigrants,” said Mary Kay Henry, the president of the Service Employees International Union. news link

The law that was under attack was a California law but similar laws exist in other places as well. The challenge against these laws has been funded by a number of conservative foundations and they are expected to keep at it:

Under California law, public employees who choose not to join unions must pay a “fair share service fee,” also known as an “agency fee,” typically equivalent to the dues members pay. The fees, the law says, are meant to pay for some of the costs of collective bargaining, including “the cost of lobbying activities.” More than 20 states have similar laws.

 

[Fudbucker]

I can tell you that in California, the state teacher's union was watching this one closely. We were scared to death of it when Scalia was alive. We thought MAYBE we'd squeak by with a 5-4 win. It would have gutted our unions, both local and state-wide.

 

[Tony Stark]

Another good result coming from Scalia's death.

 

[xjx388]

Can someone explain how it's a good thing that non-Union teachers should be forced to pay the equivalent of union dues? It makes no sense to me.

 

[marplots]

Can someone explain how it's a good thing that non-Union teachers should be forced to pay the equivalent of union dues? It makes no sense to me.

The idea is that the non-union teachers benefit from the union activities, primarily collective bargaining for wages and benefits.

 

[Aepervius]

The idea is that the non-union teachers benefit from the union activities, primarily collective bargaining for wages and benefits.

Well the same happen in germany and I still don't have to pay for the unions.

 

[marplots]

Well the same happen in germany and I still don't have to pay for the unions.

Yes, the decision could have gone the other way. There are good arguments on both sides.

 

[newyorkguy]

What if the teachers who opt out of the union have to negotiate their own wage and benefit package? Or would that only create a two-tier wage scale with an incentive for the school system to hire non-union teachers who will work for less money/benefits?

Unions say the teachers’ First Amendment argument is a ruse. Nonmembers are already entitled to refunds of payments spent on political activities like advertising to support a political candidate. Collective bargaining is different, the unions say, adding that the plaintiffs are seeking to reap the benefits of such bargaining without paying their fair share of the cost. news link to hearing

 

[fagin]

What if the teachers who opt out of the union have to negotiate their own wage and benefit package? Or would that only create a two-tier wage scale with an incentive for the school system to hire non-union teachers who will work for less money/benefits?

Or perhaps the better teachers could negotiate better salaries and benefits?

 

[newyorkguy]

I think already there is proficiency pay in some unionized school systems but non-union workers usually receive lower wages and benefits. The reality is, wages and benefits are under economic pressure in any public school system. Employees negotiating by themselves are at a huge disadvantage. It's one person trying to bargain with a bureaucracy.

This is from a 2014 government study:

Recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) show that, on average, union workers receive larger wage increases than those of non-union workers and generally earn higher wages and have greater access to most of the common employer-sponsored benefits as well. Link to site

 

[Jules Galen]

Another good result coming from Scalia's death.

Amen. I am so happy that guy is now a corpse.

 

[applecorped]

classy

 

[Foolmewunz]

classy

Maybe it's just a really tasteful April Fool's Day comment.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=305410

 

[sackett]

If a non-union worker has a grievance, the union represents him in his tussle with management. Maybe these free riders would prefer to pay for their own lawyers?

The bosses sure wish they would.

 

[DuvalHMFIC]

My brother is a middle school history teacher. He says that outside of the few people that really LOVE teaching, he sees the same story play out again and again.

1. New teacher comes in, fresh out of college. They are excited, enthusiastic, and generally good teachers.

2. 3 or 4 school years go by, real life gets in the way, bills pile up, maybe they get married or have a kid.

3. The sudden realization that they are in a tiered pay system starts to set in. The enthusiasm dwindles, the effort falls off a cliff.

4. Put on a dog-and-pony show during those "teacher evaluations" so it looks like you care more than you do. Really, the goal is just to keep your job, and that's not really difficult.

My brother LOVES teaching history. Loves it. But he has a family and two little kids. Of course he's going to bartend in the evening for extra cash instead of coming up with a good lesson plan. He's got mouths to feed! He already KNOWS what his raise will be, regardless of his performance.

On the flip side, he said that he is probably one of maybe 3 teachers in his entire school that are anti-union. I'm obviously human and will put more weight into what my brother tells me, but I'm also skeptical enough to know that 3 <<<< however many other teachers are at that school. Grain of salt, yadda yadda yadda. Certainly an interesting debate.

 

[sunmaster14]

I'm against unions in general, since I think it is a form of market collusion, but the case against public sector unions is particularly strong. This article lays out the case that public sector unions are unnecessary in theory and corrupting in practice.

The idea of eliminating union privileges in the public sector may seem like a radical one. But society has changed greatly from the era in which industrial unions were born, and, in any event, public sector unions raise substantially different issues than those in the private sector. In the early 20th century, workers were less educated and less mobile, and were indeed subject to exploitation by private companies, some of which had monopoly power in local labor markets or regularly employed private violence. To balance the bargaining power between such companies and their workers in such a climate, the federal government provided the employees with the mechanism of collective bargaining.

But the potential benefits of unions in the private sector are very attenuated and probably nonexistent in the public sector. First, public employees are typically protected by civil service statutes that provide an important measure of job security and protection from arbitrary hiring and firing decisions. These statutes also tend to regulate promotion and compensation decisions. The potential for a spoils system to arise or for politicians to seek vengeance on opponents in government employ provide strong arguments for such statutes. Their omnipresence, however, at the very least mitigates the need for an additional layer of union protection. Second, governments typically face lower borrowing costs and enjoy easier access to sources of direct financing (i.e., taxation) than private sector employers, which insulates the public sector from the business cycle. Indeed, despite much talk of layoffs in government, since the present recession began in 2008, private sector payrolls have declined by over seven million, while government payrolls overall hardly budged. Third, workers who prefer government employment typically have a variety of options (federal, state, county, city) or possess skill sets that are transferable to the large private service sector. In short, the potential social benefits offered by private sector unions are not present in the public sector.

 

[Beerina]

FDR did not like public sector unions, either.

 

[marplots]

What if the teachers who opt out of the union have to negotiate their own wage and benefit package? Or would that only create a two-tier wage scale with an incentive for the school system to hire non-union teachers who will work for less money/benefits?

Or perhaps the better teachers could negotiate better salaries and benefits?

One of the things the union can negotiate (in some states at least) is that the school system hire only union members.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Let me first concede to the other side how great these unions are. I will concede that their ability to collect dues produces infinite benefits and if the conservative side one it would produce infinite harm.

How is this the right decision? It seems to me clearly that it is a government backed institution forcing people to give money for a political advocacy (how big the employee line in the education budget should be). That seems to violate basic principles of free speech.

 

[Fudbucker]

Or perhaps the better teachers could negotiate better salaries and benefits?

It can be really hard to identify "better teachers" in areas with high transitory rates. It's not abnormal for half my original class to be gone by the end of the year, replaced by kids from other districts. I suppose you could test just the kids that have been with me all year, but many of those kids come from terrible homes. Sometimes they do horrible on the pretest at the beginning of the year, and great on the post-test, at the end of the year, and it looks like they had tremendous growth. Sometimes the opposite happens and it looks like they had negative growth.

You could go by administrator evaluations, but that just moves the problem up a level: how do we know that a given administrator is competent enough to know a good teacher from a bad? Some administrators are great, some are terrible.