The union respondents in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association have now filed their brief as well, which is available here.
The respondents call for Abood v. Detroit Board of Education to “be reaffirmed because it correctly respects public employers’ prerogative to manage their workforces to ensure the efficient provision of public services to their citizens.” As did the California Attorney General in her brief, the unions focus on the state’s interests as an employer relative to employees’ First Amendment rights:
Drawing on private-sector employers’ experience and Congress’s legislative judgments, Abood properly recognized that the agency shop serves States’ strong interests in the orderly negotiation of terms and conditions of employment and resolution of employee grievances. A single representative is critical to avoid the confusion and burden of negotiating with multiple groups of workers with conflicting demands. When a union serves as exclusive representative, States have a vital interest in ensuring the fair allocation of the costs of that service to all employees.
Abood correctly held that the State’s interests as employer outweigh any interference with employees’ First Amendment rights. Abood fully accommodated non-members’ First Amendment interests by allowing non-members to opt out of contributing to unions’ political expenditures unrelated to collective bargaining. Agency-fee requirements impose no limits on employees’ right to speak against the union’s positions. Any compelled funding is ancillary to exclusive representation itself, the constitutionality of which is settled and unchallenged here.
The unions also invoke “[s]ettled stare decisis principles” in support of their request to reaffirm Abood:
Outlawing fair-share fees will override the judgments of 23 States plus the District of Columbia that have enacted statutory collective-bargaining frameworks covering public-education employees. It also will throw into disarray tens of thousands of collective-bargaining agreements governing millions of teachers, police officers, firefighters, first responders, and other public employees. The Abood framework is workable. This Court’s largely unanimous decisions have generated only limited disagreement over its implementation. The only two decisions to break from that pattern – Knox [v. SEIU] and Harris [v. Quinn] – involved contexts that did not directly implicate Abood (Knox) or did not involve the State’s interest in managing its workforce (Harris).
As for the opt-out question:
This Court’s well-settled opt-out framework for implementing Abood is properly tailored to the First Amendment’s core prohibition on coercion. It is also consistent with other well-established case law requiring individuals to invoke constitutional rights. Petitioners’ requested opt-in rule would vastly expand the First Amendment’s sweep and lead to unworkable and unnecessary intrusion into large swaths of government activity. If individuals genuinely object to unions’ political activities, they can readily fill out and mail in the simple, one-page opt-out form.
The full union respondents brief is available here. Petitioners’ brief, which was filed in September, is available here; their reply brief is due in mid-December, with oral argument to follow early next year.
Daily News & Commentary
Start your day with our roundup of the latest labor developments. See all
April 18
Disneyland performers file petition for unionization and union elections begin at Volkswagen plant in Tennessee.
April 18
In today’s Tech@Work, a regulation-of-algorithms-in-hiring blitz: Mass. AG issues advisory clarifying how state laws apply to AI decisionmaking tools; and British union TUC launches campaign for new law to regulate the use of AI at work.
April 17
Southern governors oppose UAW organizing in their states; Florida bans local heat protections for workers; Google employees occupy company offices to protest contracts with the Israeli government
April 16
EEOC publishes final regulation implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, Volkswagen workers in Tennessee gear up for a union election, and the First Circuit revives the Whole Foods case over BLM masks.
April 15
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of bakery delivery drivers in an exemption from mandatory arbitration case; A Teamsters Local ends its 18-month strike by accepting settlement payments and agreeing to dissolve
April 14
SAG-AFTRA wins AI protections; DeSantis signs Florida bill preempting local employment regulation; NLRB judge says Whole Foods subpoenas violate federal labor law.