Friday, January 15, 2016

Friedrichs: Did Justice Sotomayor Claim Teacher Unions Are Company Unions?

We’ve already permitted subsidization of bar associations, of government programs. We’ve permitted assessments on a lot of different levels, so why can’t the government, as employer, create a State entity? Because this union under California law is a State entity.... Justice Sotomayor
Mike Antonucci dug up the nugget below.

We have often claimed that the UFT/NYSUT/AFT educational complex often functioned like a sort of company union - the support for ed deform for so long has been a major indicator.
The discussion then veered off into the weeds of whether the teachers’ union is a creation of the State, which I’m sure must have puzzled the union members and officers in the audience. 
I think that history shows that the UFT especially was in many ways a creation of the state. We'll delve into some of that history another time.

While the "company union" term may not be totally apt, I believe that the creation of public service unions was partially inspired by the desires of the powers that be to be able to use these unions to assist in controlling the workers. My recent posts on Detroit is an example of the threat a rank and file off their leash poses.

And we have here in NYC seen the most restrictive leash by our own ruling Unity caucus party. If the UFT under Unity control were failing due to Friedrichs, watch the powers that be rush in to ensure its survival. They need a cooperative non-militant union as a partner.

I remember being at a reception and running into the 2nd command at the DOE. It was during the Chicago teacher strike. He looked worried. "Do you think Mulgrew could go that way," he asked? I broke out in hysterical laughing. "You have no worries," I said.

Here is Mike's full post:

Justice Sotomayor’s Ingenious Solution to the Agency Fee Problem

Written By: Mike Antonucci - Jan• 12•16
I spent most of yesterday answering questions and reading analysis about oral arguments in the Friedrichs case before the U.S. Supreme Court. Everyone seems to be enjoying reading the tea leaves, but we’ll find out soon enough. In the meantime, it is only prudent for the unions to continue to prepare for the worst.

Almost all of the commentary I read focused on the line of questioning – often hostile – by the conservative Justices towards attorneys for the union respondents. I can’t fathom how everyone overlooked this fascinating proposition by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
We’ve already permitted subsidization of bar associations, of government programs. We’ve permitted assessments on a lot of different levels, so why can’t the government, as employer, create a State entity? Because this union under California law is a State entity.
I don’t know what went through the mind of Friedrichs attorney Michael A. Carvin upon hearing this, but he responded in the only sensible way.
“No,” he said.
Justice Sotomayor then read from the respondents’ brief of the California Attorney General, which cited the Perry case.
“When recognized as the exclusive bargaining representative, a union assumes an official position in the operational structure of a school.” So it seems to me that ­­– and California tells the union what topics it can negotiate on, it requires them to do training, and in the end it accepts their recommendations with respect to the issues of employment at its own will, meaning the State is creating the union as part of the employment training and other responsibilities.
The discussion then veered off into the weeds of whether the teachers’ union is a creation of the State, which I’m sure must have puzzled the union members and officers in the audience. Justice Sotomayor eventually returned to the debate. She asked Carvin whether, without the benefit of agency fees, the union could claim it could not financially fulfill the duties of exclusive representative and ask the school district to pay those expenses.
Carvin then asked if she meant could the government subsidize the union’s collective bargaining efforts. “Mm­-hmm,” she replied.
MR. CARVIN: I think they might be able to, but of course no State—
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: All right. So why can’t they assess ­­ — why can’t they assess all of their employees a tax for that contribution?
Who could have guessed that the way out of the agency fee mess was for school districts to form company unions? And then charge teachers for the privilege?
Carvin noted this would be a violation of the National Labor Relations Act and the discussion moved on. It apparently stuck in the mind of Justice Samuel Alito, however. Later on, when California Solicitor General Edward C. Dumont was beginning to present his case, Justice Alito interrupted him:
JUSTICE ALITO: Before you get into that, could I just ask you a preliminary question that came up earlier in the argument? Do you think that the California Teachers Association is an agency of the State of California?
MR. DUMONT: No. I think a — ­­ a — ­­ a union that becomes an exclusive representative, under the Perry case, has an official place in the functioning of the school district. But it is not ­­– it does not become an organ of the State.
Some of us here in California have often worried that CTA was a de facto part of the government. Apparently Justice Sotomayor thought it was de jure.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments are welcome. Irrelevant and abusive comments will be deleted, as will all commercial links. Comment moderation is on, so if your comment does not appear it is because I have not been at my computer (I do not do cell phone moderating).