Law & Courts

High Stakes in Union-Fee Case Before Supreme Court

By Mark Walsh — January 05, 2016 8 min read
The Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association case goes before the U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 11.
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

The face of the movement seeking to upend the public-employee labor sector has had a back-and-forth relationship with her own local teachers’ union.

Rebecca Friedrichs, the lead plaintiff among a small group of California teachers whose case goes before the U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 11, started her teaching career in a small school district in Orange County by refusing to join the local union. Later, she joined the union and even became an officer.

Friedrichs is now back to her roots as a so-called agency-fee payer—a nonmember of the union who must pay the proportion of dues that goes for collective bargaining and a few other related costs. The main legal question in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (Case No. 14-915) is whether a key Supreme Court precedent authorizing such agency-fee arrangements should be overruled.

“The unions have core values that are in direct opposition to my core values,” Friedrichs said in an interview. “They’re using those fees to support their core values and their agenda.”

‘A Big Deal’

Friedrichs and nine other teachers are asking the Supreme Court to overrule that 1977 precedent, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, and hold that states may not allow unions to exact such fees from public employees who refuse to join.

Abood held that state interests in maintaining labor peace and eliminating “free riders” justified requiring nonmembers to pay such fees, which are also known as service fees or “fair share” fees.

The Friedrichs case holds high stakes for the future of public-sector unions, not least the teachers’ unions that are parties to the case.

Union Fees: How Nonmembers Are Charged

The Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association case involves “agency fees” paid by non-union teachers—the proportion of union dues related to collective bargaining. Here are some examples of CTA expenses and the degree to which non-union members could be charged for them, based on a typical notice sent to agency-fee payers.


Source: Court records in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association

The challengers “are asking for a ruling that would take down the collective bargaining laws of 23 states, all of which rely on fair-share fees,” said Alice O’Brien, the general counsel of the National Education Association, which is defending the Abood precedent alongside the California Teachers Association, the union’s state affiliate, and the 10 local affiliates in the Southern California districts where the objecting teachers work.

“The union will obviously lose funds” if nonmembers are no longer required to pay for collective bargaining, O’Brien said. “Some people will make the rational choice to not pay for services that are provided for free by the union.”

Charlotte Garden, an associate professor at Seattle University’s law school and a labor-law expert, said “the case is a big deal.”

“It’s not heralding the end of public-sector unionism the way some people have suggested,” said Garden, who helped organize a friend-of-the-court brief by labor-law professors on the unions’ side. “But it is going to matter a lot in terms of upsetting settled labor contracts.”

If the pro-union voices speak as if the risks to 40 years of settled public-sector labor law are very real, that’s because they are. Conservatives on the Supreme Court have been signaling their desire to overrule Abood for several years now.

In a 2014 decision in Harris v. Quinn, the Supreme Court stopped just short of overturning Abood when it held that a group of Medicaid home-health workers were really not government employees and could not be forced to pay agency fees to a union representing a majority of such workers in Illinois.

Differing Views

Writing for a 5-4 majority in Harris, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote at length about Abood‘s “questionable foundations,” but he concluded it wasn’t necessary to overrule the 1977 decision in the Illinois case. Alito had raised similar concerns in a separate case two years earlier.

In a dissent for the court’s liberal bloc, Justice Elena Kagan wrote: “For some 40 years, Abood has struck a stable balance—consistent with this court’s general framework for assessing public employees’ First Amendment claims—between those employees’ rights and government entities’ interests in managing their workforces.”

The case highlights a reality about how union dues and agency fees operate in many states.

In California, public-sector unions actually collect the full amount of dues from objecting employees. Then, the agency-fee payers must “opt out,” or affirmatively object, to paying for unions’ political and lobbying activities, and they then get a refund for those nonchargeable activities.

Some union expenditures are clearly related to collective bargaining, and thus “chargeable” to fee payers; others are clearly not related, and thus “nonchargeable.” But many categories of spending—legal services, public relations, back-office administration—are at least partially chargeable.

In the 2012-13 school year—a year detailed in the factual record in the case—45.9 percent of the National Education Association’s expenditures qualified as chargeable to nonunion agency-fee payers, while 68.4 percent of the California Teachers Association’s expenses were chargeable. For the local unions involved in the Friedrichs case, the amount qualifying as chargeable ranged from 84.4 percent to 100 percent, reflecting the fact that spending at the local-affiliate level is more likely to be related to collective bargaining and contract management.

Despite the proportions that they could charge, the unions actually charged fee-payers only 40 percent for NEA expenses, 65.4 percent for CTA spending, and 65.4 percent for local union spending. Differences in what could be charged and what is charged provide a cushion in case of disputes over the chargeability of particular expenses. (Such disputes go to an independent arbitrator.)

The second question in Friedrichs is whether the First Amendment requires that fee-payers “opt in,” or affirmatively consent, to having any of their pay go to union political and lobbying expenses.

The Supreme Court has moved in that direction in recent years, ruling that states may require such affirmative consent, and that such an opt-in is required when a public-sector union collects a special assessment.

Union Yes, Then No

Friedrichs has spent her entire 30-year career in the 2,400-student Savanna district in Anaheim, Calif., teaching from kindergarten through 4th grade at different times.

After several years as an agency-fee payer, Friedrichs decided to join the union after all, at least for a time.

“After several years of standing on principle, it dawned on me that I wanted to have a voice in my union,” Friedrichs said. She even became a union leader, serving as a campus representative and later as an executive-board member of her union local.

“But even then, I had no voice because I wasn’t in step” with all of the union’s priorities, says Friedrichs. She didn’t want to go knocking on doors on behalf of political candidates endorsed by the union, and she had even suggested openness to private school vouchers, something staunchly opposed by the NEA and its affiliates.

Friedrichs quit the union for good and now must pay the agency fee, which for a full-time teacher amounts to about $650 a year, or about 65 percent of the roughly $1,000 per year that union members are charged in local, state, and national dues. (Friedrichs, one of three agency-fee payers at her school, has been working half-time recently so she has time to travel and speak out about the case.)

A central claim of Friedrichs and the other objecting teachers is that collective bargaining itself is “quintessentially political,” so when the teachers’ unions lobby the school district or the state for better pay and working conditions, they are engaged in political speech and expressing views the objecting teachers may not agree with.

“At the fundamental level, when a public-employee union negotiates for higher salaries, it is negotiating with the government over taxpayer spending,” said Terence J. Pell, the president of the Center for Individual Rights, a Washington public-interest legal organization that is representing Friedrichs and the other nonunion teachers.

“A lot of teachers like their union,” Pell says. “They’re going to join and pay dues. What we’re really fighting for is the free-speech rights of those who don’t really agree with the union.”

But what teacher is not in favor of higher pay and better working conditions?

Friedrichs said that amid tough economic conditions in her district, she and some other teachers were in favor of a small pay cut so that the jobs of certain teachers could be saved. But the local union instead pressed for a pay increase, and several teachers were laid off.

Freedom to Lobby

The NEA’s O’Brien said collective bargaining is not the same as political lobbying.

“If you seriously consider that claim, it fails at the very threshold,” she said. “Collective bargaining is controlled by the states. A state like California can decide that certain topics are off limits in bargaining, such as tenure and layoffs, which are controlled by state law.”

Besides, said O’Brien, the objecting teachers “are free as citizens to take any stand they want and lobby the government.”

She says public-employee unions take seriously their obligation to represent everyone in the bargaining unit—union members and nonmembers alike.

“Employers value exclusive representation, and the only way that works is if they impose a strong obligation to represent everyone in the workplace,” O’Brien said.

O’Brien argues that overturning Abood would call into question thousands of contracts between government agencies and public-employee unions, governing not just teachers but also law-enforcement officers, firefighters, and others.

Although both sides are tamping down the rhetoric that has surrounded the question of whether eliminating mandatory agency fees would be a severe blow to the unions, O’Brien said: “All you have to do is look at the difference between right-to-work states and non-right-to-work states to see that [the challengers’] arguments do not take into account certain economic realities. Unions that are forced to carry people in the unit for free are weaker.”

Pell, of the Center for Individual Rights, the group backing the challenge, countered that public-employee unions needed laws requiring agency fees when those unions were just getting off the ground.

“But now, the CTA is the most powerful interest in the state of California,” he said. “Once the union has become that big and powerful, it is hard to take seriously its reliance interests on compulsory [fees].”

Friedrichs also believes a win for her side would not seriously dent the power of the unions.

“I think it would make them more accountable to their members, and they would have to up their game,” she said. “Right now,” she contended, “they are totally entrenched and focused on their own preservation.”

A version of this article appeared in the January 06, 2016 edition of Education Week as High Stakes in Union-Fee Case Before Supreme Court


Student Well-Being K-12 Essentials Forum Boosting Student and Staff Mental Health: What Schools Can Do
Join this free virtual event based on recent reporting on student and staff mental health challenges and how schools have responded.
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Curriculum Webinar
Practical Methods for Integrating Computer Science into Core Curriculum
Dive into insights on integrating computer science into core curricula with expert tips and practical strategies to empower students at every grade level.
Content provided by

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Law & Courts Wisconsin Teachers Sue to Restore Collective Bargaining Rights
The lawsuit takes fresh aim at a 2011 law that severely restricted bargaining, and has survived several legal challenges since.
6 min read
Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC) vice president Betsy Kippers leads a chant during a rally to protest Governor Scott Walker's budget repair bill, at the Brown County Courthouse in downtown Green Bay on February 16, 2011.
Betsy Kippers, vice president of the Wisconsin Education Association Council, leads a chant during a rally to protest Gov. Scott Walker's budget repair bill, at the Brown County Courthouse in downtown Green Bay on February 16, 2011.
H. Marc Larson/The Green Bay Press-Gazette via AP
Law & Courts What Sandra Day O'Connor Did to Shape School Law and Civics Education
O'Connor wrote influential opinions on affirmative action, Title IX, and other education issues. Then she tirelessly worked on civics.
10 min read
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor listens as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pays tribute to O'Connor's advocacy work on behalf of civic education, impact on female judges and justice for women and girls worldwide at the Seneca Women Global Leadership Forum at the National Museum of Women in the Arts, on April 15, 2015 in Washington.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor listens to a tribute to her advocacy work on behalf of civics education and women's role in the legal profession at the National Museum of Women in the Arts, on April 15, 2015, in Washington.
Kevin Wolf/Invision for Seneca Women via AP Images
Law & Courts U.S. Supreme Court Takes Up Major Gun Case With School Safety in Backdrop
The principle that guns may be barred from schools may bolster a federal law restricting firearm possession by domestic abusers.
6 min read
Gun safety and domestic violence prevention organizations gather outside of the Supreme Court before oral arguments are heard in United States v. Rahimi on Nov. 7, 2023, in Washington.
Gun safety and domestic violence prevention organizations gather outside the U.S. Supreme Court before oral arguments are heard in <i>United States</i> v. <i>Rahimi</i> on Nov. 7, 2023, in Washington.
Stephanie Scarbrough/AP
Law & Courts What the Supreme Court Had to Say About School Board Members Blocking Constituents
The justices take up a case involving school board members who blocked some constituents from posting comments on public social media pages.
7 min read
The sun rises behind the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on Nov. 10, 2020.
The sun rises behind the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on Nov. 10, 2020.
Alex Brandon/AP