The larger issue, though, is that union leaders fear employees will simply choose to stop paying dues for economic reasons, if the law allows that choice. That will quickly empty union coffers and weaken their organizations, some leaders fear.
Here’s what you need to know.
1. It started with a teacher in California.
The lead plaintiff, Rebecca Friedrichs, is a Buena Park, Calif. elementary school teacher. She doesn’t want to pay California teacher union’s fees, arguing that requiring her payments as a condition of employment violates her First Amendment rights.
“We’re asking that teachers be able to decide for ourselves, without fear or coercion, whether or not to join or fund a union,” Friedrichs said in an interview with Reason.com last summer. “It’s that simple.”
Her lawsuit was filed in April 2013.
2. Union supporters are concerned.
“We’re obviously watching it very closely,” Tim Burga, president of the Ohio AFL-CIO, said Tuesday.
Some of the comments and questions Supreme Court justices offered Monday explored what would happen if the plaintiffs prevailed. That suggests “at least some members of the court viewed it (that outcome) as a foregone conclusion,” a New York Times story said.
3. If the plaintiffs win, an existing law will be overturned.
A 1977 Supreme Court decision allows "fair share" fees. Part of the issue is whether Abood v. Detroit Board of Education should be overturned.
4. Private employers would not be affected.
The case concerns only unions of public employees. A decision for the plaintiffs would not affect private employers, such as General Motors or AK Steel.
5. There's disagreement about how unions would be affected
As Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia noted Monday, unions of federal employees don’t charge fees to non-members.
“They seem to survive,” Scalia said. “Indeed, they prosper.”
About the Author
