"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."
Why Your Ongoing Support Is Essential
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
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.