If the Supreme Court nixes agency fees, as Wisconsin has already done, unions will lose badly.
Two rallies were held outside the Supreme Court on Jan. 11, the day justices heard oral arguments in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association. On one side, hundreds of union supporters rallied to maintain mandatory agency fees, a testament to their powerful political machine. Nearby, dozens rallied in support of California teacher and plaintiff Rebecca Friedrichs and against agency fees.
So what are agency fees, and why are they so important for teachers unions? California Teachers Association members pay about $1,000 in annual dues, while nonmembers must pay roughly $650 in agency fees for representation in collective bargaining. The $350 difference is refunded to nonmembers because it is spent on political activities and not on bargaining. Friedrichs complaint is that the $650 agency fee violates nonmembers' First Amendment rights to free speech and free association. The California Teachers Association maintains the fees are reasonable payments for representation in labor negotiations, and that fees prevent nonmembers from free-riding and secure the state's interest in stable labor relations.
[READ: California’s Summit Public Schools Are the Schools of the Future]
The justices' questioning during oral arguments suggests the unions should prepare for defeat. If that is in fact the verdict, what would happen to the unions in the 23 states that currently have agency fees? The immediate impact would be that unions forego the agency fees and lose revenue. However, that would be just the tip of the iceberg.
As I have written elsewhere, removing agency fees changes the cost of union membership. In California, the real cost now is about $350, the difference between $1,000 in dues and the $650 fees. Without fees, the choice would be between $0 and $1,000, so the cost would rise to $1,000. This increase would encourage uncommitted members to leave and discourage new teachers from joining. Without agency fees, union membership would decline in states that now allow agency fees, and they would have far less political power.
Wisconsin is a telling example. In 2011, Gov. Scott Walker passed Act 10, legislation that did away with agency fees for public sector unions, among other measures that curbed union power. Membership in the state's largest teachers union, the Wisconsin Education Association Council, dropped dramatically, from about 98,000 members in 2011 to about 40,000 last year. The graph below shows data on that union's political activities from 2005 to 2015.
The council's annual lobbying expenditures ranged from $500,000 to $1,500,000 from 2005 to 2010, and peaked at $2.25 million in 2011 during its fight to stop Act 10. Since Act 10 passed and agency fees were eliminated in 2011, the council's lobbying expenditures have remained below $150,000. A similar pattern is evident in hours spent lobbying.
But Act 10 limited union power in ways besides removing agency fees, which raises a fair question: Is Wisconsin a good test case for post-Friedrichs unions?
A look at Indiana teachers unions suggests it is. With agency fees already outlawed, Indiana passed limits on collective bargaining in 2011 similar to those in Wisconsin's Act 10. Yet since 2011, membership in Indiana's largest teachers union has only dropped by roughly 10 to 15 percent, compared to roughly 60 percent in Wisconsin. This difference suggests that agency fees, and not the other limits to collective bargaining, are the biggest challenge to retaining members that unions would face.
[READ: More 2016 Candidates Need to Talk About Charter Schools]
Returning to that challenge, it's impossible to know exactly what the fallout from a Friedrichs ruling against agency fees would look like, but here are three likely consequences.
With agency fees prohibited, unions' membership and revenue would decline and so would their political muscle; they would have to focus their remaining resources on collective bargaining. Whether that is good or bad outcome depends largely on which rally on the Supreme Court steps you support. The fact is that teachers unions currently spend heavily on political activities; by the California Teachers Association's own accounting, about one-third of dues are used for explicitly political purposes. If declines in membership in other states are even half those seen in Wisconsin, unions' political wings will be substantially clipped.
Those clipped wings would not mean unions will not survive, as they do in states without agency fees. One positive would be that once the uncommitted drop out, the remaining membership would have higher commitment and participation. But unions would have to become leaner and more focused on proving their value to members at the collective bargaining table.
[READ: Common Core Is Good for Military Families]
In the long run, union claims that agency fees are important to retain stability in labor negotiations could prove prescient. Recertification, by which unions retain their role as the sole representative in contract negotiations, has long been a pro forma affair because the certified unions have automatically received mandated agency fees, fees which have kept their membership high and made their recertification all but certain. Down the road, with no fees and diminished membership bases, certified unions could face real challenges from rival unions, meaning the state might negotiate with different unions over time. The case of Wisconsin is again telling: About half of local unions have failed to recertify as the sole representative since Act 10 passed.
If the court rules against agency fees, the Wisconsin example suggests teachers unions should expect their revenue and power base to be greatly diminished. Although teacher unions are likely to remain a principal political force in public education for the foreseeable future, the next time they hold a rally at the Supreme Court, their political machine might not muster the largest crowd.
Above is from: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowledge-bank/articles/2016-01-20/the-supreme-court-and-friedrichs-spell-a-bleak-future-for-unions
No comments:
Post a Comment