Follow AAE on:

Subscribe to RSS Feed:

U.S. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Teacher Freedom of Choice
posted by: Alix | June 29, 2012, 03:49 PM   

Compulsory unionism and the ability of teacher unions to forcibly collect union dues from teacher paychecks has been a hot topic in recent years. From Wisconsin to Ohio, education stakeholders have debated the topic in high-profile legislative and legal battles with clear national implications. Just last Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court made it more difficult for public-employee unions to extract special fee assessments from non-members for expenses such as ballot battles in a clear step forward for teacher freedoms.

The court required public unions, including teachers' unions, to gain the "opt-in" consent of fee-paying members to face such special fees or dues hikes, instead of the more prevalent practice of making the employees take lengthy steps to "opt out." While many teachers in compulsory states go through a cumbersome process to receive small refunds for political spending, this decision would ensure that these teachers – and other teachers who pay full dues – would have to "opt in" to pay additional fees.

Concurring with the court's holding, Justice Samuel Alito wrote, "When a public-sector union imposes a special assessment or dues increase, the union must provide a fresh Hudson notice and may not exact any funds...without their affirmative consent." A Hudson notice is the accounting statement named for the 1986 Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson decision.

Further, Justice Alito said it was not enough for non-members to get their money back after the fact. For employees who "disagreed with the SEIU's electoral objectives, a refund provided after the union's objectives had already been achieved would be cold comfort," Alito said.

On the opt-in issue, Alito suggested that the common practice of requiring objectors to opt out became accepted despite its constitutional implications."By allowing unions to collect any fees... our cases have substantially impinged upon the First Amendment rights of nonmembers," Alito said. "In the new situation presented here, we see no justification for any further impingement. The general rule—individuals should not be compelled to subsidize private groups or private speech—should prevail."

This decision has huge implications for unions facing uphill political battles. Last year in Ohio, for example, the Ohio Education Association assessed an additional $50 per member to finance the referendum campaign against Senate Bill 5. Based on the court's ruling, fees like these would become illegal unless teachers made the conscious decision to "opt in" and pay the additional dues or assessments.

Based on the response from teachers in Ohio, this decision will be crippling to unions who count on these unfair fees to advance their political agendas. Thousands of teachers were outraged by the thought of additional political fees in Ohio, particularly when they already saddled with $800-$900 in dues per year. One teacher wrote, "I am appalled that the OEA feels they can commandeer funds from my pay check without my approval." Perhaps if teachers had been given the choice in Ohio in 2011, the Senate Bill 5 ballot referendum would have had a completely different outcome.

What do you think about the Supreme Court's decision?

Comment below.

Comments (6)Add Comment
written by Cindy WV, July 25, 2012

I thought the whole concept of a "strawman" was that he did not exist. So, if you see him, doesn't that mean he exists? ... Which, by definition, makes him an un-strawman. AKA: a real argument? Anywho, I will continue with logical, rational thought while the unions take my dues and contribute to causes I do not support - while paying the great union leaders hundreds of thousands of dollars. But, it's all for the kids.
Unions may not be *the* problem in public education...
written by Darren, Sacramento CA, July 25, 2012

...but they're definitely a problem. Compelling me to pay a private organization that spends that coerced money in ways I don't like--Jefferson himself called that the very definition of tyranny, and that in itself is enough reason to cut "organizations created for educators at the knees".

If unions provided a valuable service I'd *want* to support them. That they are entitled to my money by law, even though I don't want to give it to them, makes them entirely unaccountable. Why would anyone support this?
written by Michelle Taylor MA, July 10, 2012

My all time favorite group is ALEC! Producing model legislation without public input. A real nice way for private interest to push their agenda with politicians behind closed doors. I guess they know more about the problems in our schools than the teachers and/or administrators, parents and community which local schools represent. Sad, but they have taken over the message. It's pretty evident. We all know what their message is.....
written by Michelle Taylor MA, July 10, 2012

More pressing issues? Let me guess... like union busting? The biggest problem with testing scores is how low income, ELL students, and minorities perform. Vouchers don't address this issue. No one has really addressed it. All you get are a bunch of politicians, who don't know the first thing about being in a classroom, trying to make policies that harm public education. However, they sure know how to divide us.
Inequality is a fact
written by Tracie, Onalaska, July 04, 2012

Michelle, You are right there is a lot of inequality in education but there is also the same in the world. Inequality exists because we're human. As teachers, it's our job to teach kids where they're at and raise them up when they're ready. We cannot force things on them they're not willing to accept. In my opinion, there are more pressing issues in education than inequality.
Special Education Teacher
written by Michelle Taylor MA, July 03, 2012

I know a strawman when I see it. Teacher unions are no more the problem than politicians the answer! It's time for real discourse and real solutions. The experiment they did in Chile with the voucher program created more inequality. That is not the solution. Having corporation buy politicians to push through legislation while cutting organizations created for educators at the knees only takes our voice away. This is a great tactic to weaken unions but does zip to address the problems in education and the inequality we should be fighting against.

Submit a comment
 (not published)
smaller | bigger

security code
Write the displayed characters