"Hyperbole aside, a decision that makes the whole public sector 'right to work' could be devastating," argued Labor Notes writer Samantha Winslow. (Photo: Carlos Osorio/AP)
Jan 08, 2016
Workers across the United States are bracing for a major Supreme Court case, set for argument on Monday, that could strike a devastating blow to public sector unions nationwide.
Backed by right-wing anti-union groups including the Center for Individual Rights, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association seeks to overturn the legal framework under which public sector unions require workers who benefit from their representation--from higher wages to improved conditions--to pay their fair share.
In other words, the case could result in the enforcement of so-called "Right to Work" (RTW) laws--dubbed by critics as "Right to Work for Less"--on all public labor unions in the United States.
The current case is one of many attempts to undo Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) and follows the passage of RTW laws in 25 states.
The case has huge implications for public unions. According to the editorial board of The Nation, the reversal of Abood would "trigger an earthquake in American labor relations."
"The legal foundations of thousands of public-sector bargaining agreements, covering millions of workers providing all manner of public services, will disappear," the editorial continues. "The whole of American public employment, at all levels of government, will become a 'right to work' (i.e., right not to pay for service) killing field for unions."
Unions are planning to mobilize to the steps of the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. next week to warn that the case poses a significant threat, not only to union members, but to society at large.
States with RTW laws have more severe poverty, higher infant mortality rates, and greater workplace fatalities, according to studies. In fact, the Economic Policy Institute concluded in April that full-time workers in RTW states make, on average, $1,558 less a year in earnings.
What's more, union members note, strong unions for public employees protect the people those workers serve.
"As nurses our ability to have a collective voice for our patients is critical," Martese Chism, a public hospital nurse in Chicago, said in a statement released Friday by National Nurses United. "Without the support of our union, nurses have little protection to speak out and challenge unsafe staffing or other eroding patient care conditions that happen all too often in our hospitals."
Whatever happens with the the case, rights campaigners urge that now is the time to be vigilant. As Labor Notes writer Samantha Winslow argued last summer, "organizing is the key to surviving Friedrichs."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Our Summer Campaign is now underway, and there’s never been a more urgent time for Common Dreams to be as vigilant as possible. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Sarah Lazare
Sarah Lazare is web editor at In These Times. She is a former Staff Writer at Common Dreams. She comes from a background in independent journalism for publications including The Intercept, The Nation, and Tom Dispatch.
Workers across the United States are bracing for a major Supreme Court case, set for argument on Monday, that could strike a devastating blow to public sector unions nationwide.
Backed by right-wing anti-union groups including the Center for Individual Rights, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association seeks to overturn the legal framework under which public sector unions require workers who benefit from their representation--from higher wages to improved conditions--to pay their fair share.
In other words, the case could result in the enforcement of so-called "Right to Work" (RTW) laws--dubbed by critics as "Right to Work for Less"--on all public labor unions in the United States.
The current case is one of many attempts to undo Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) and follows the passage of RTW laws in 25 states.
The case has huge implications for public unions. According to the editorial board of The Nation, the reversal of Abood would "trigger an earthquake in American labor relations."
"The legal foundations of thousands of public-sector bargaining agreements, covering millions of workers providing all manner of public services, will disappear," the editorial continues. "The whole of American public employment, at all levels of government, will become a 'right to work' (i.e., right not to pay for service) killing field for unions."
Unions are planning to mobilize to the steps of the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. next week to warn that the case poses a significant threat, not only to union members, but to society at large.
States with RTW laws have more severe poverty, higher infant mortality rates, and greater workplace fatalities, according to studies. In fact, the Economic Policy Institute concluded in April that full-time workers in RTW states make, on average, $1,558 less a year in earnings.
What's more, union members note, strong unions for public employees protect the people those workers serve.
"As nurses our ability to have a collective voice for our patients is critical," Martese Chism, a public hospital nurse in Chicago, said in a statement released Friday by National Nurses United. "Without the support of our union, nurses have little protection to speak out and challenge unsafe staffing or other eroding patient care conditions that happen all too often in our hospitals."
Whatever happens with the the case, rights campaigners urge that now is the time to be vigilant. As Labor Notes writer Samantha Winslow argued last summer, "organizing is the key to surviving Friedrichs."
Sarah Lazare
Sarah Lazare is web editor at In These Times. She is a former Staff Writer at Common Dreams. She comes from a background in independent journalism for publications including The Intercept, The Nation, and Tom Dispatch.
Workers across the United States are bracing for a major Supreme Court case, set for argument on Monday, that could strike a devastating blow to public sector unions nationwide.
Backed by right-wing anti-union groups including the Center for Individual Rights, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association seeks to overturn the legal framework under which public sector unions require workers who benefit from their representation--from higher wages to improved conditions--to pay their fair share.
In other words, the case could result in the enforcement of so-called "Right to Work" (RTW) laws--dubbed by critics as "Right to Work for Less"--on all public labor unions in the United States.
The current case is one of many attempts to undo Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) and follows the passage of RTW laws in 25 states.
The case has huge implications for public unions. According to the editorial board of The Nation, the reversal of Abood would "trigger an earthquake in American labor relations."
"The legal foundations of thousands of public-sector bargaining agreements, covering millions of workers providing all manner of public services, will disappear," the editorial continues. "The whole of American public employment, at all levels of government, will become a 'right to work' (i.e., right not to pay for service) killing field for unions."
Unions are planning to mobilize to the steps of the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. next week to warn that the case poses a significant threat, not only to union members, but to society at large.
States with RTW laws have more severe poverty, higher infant mortality rates, and greater workplace fatalities, according to studies. In fact, the Economic Policy Institute concluded in April that full-time workers in RTW states make, on average, $1,558 less a year in earnings.
What's more, union members note, strong unions for public employees protect the people those workers serve.
"As nurses our ability to have a collective voice for our patients is critical," Martese Chism, a public hospital nurse in Chicago, said in a statement released Friday by National Nurses United. "Without the support of our union, nurses have little protection to speak out and challenge unsafe staffing or other eroding patient care conditions that happen all too often in our hospitals."
Whatever happens with the the case, rights campaigners urge that now is the time to be vigilant. As Labor Notes writer Samantha Winslow argued last summer, "organizing is the key to surviving Friedrichs."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.