Rebecca Friedrichs in Mourning

Friedrichs: Please, pay me less.

Untold story: How Scalia's death blew up an anti-union group's grand legal strategy

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-scalia-s-death-anti-union-group-legal-strategy-20160214-column.html

Michael HiltzikContact ReporterThe Economy Hub

 

The anti-union lawsuit known as Friedrichs vs. California Teachers Assn. is widely viewed as one of the leading casualties of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's death.

What's less well-known is how the anti-union plaintiffs connived to fast-track the case through the federal judiciary in order to get it before the court while it still harbored a conservative majority. Their method was to encourage the lower courts to rule against them, so they could file a quick appeal. But Scalia's passing is likely to leave a 4-4 deadlock over the case, so the last ruling, in which the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for the teachers union, remains in force.

Everything that is collectively bargained with the government is within the political sphere, almost by definition. - The late Justice Antonin Scalia in January, firing a broadside at union "agency fees"

This wasn't how the anti-union group behind the lawsuit, the Center for Individual Rights, expected things to work out. As we write, the group's website still features a photograph of nominal plaintiff Rebecca Friedrichs and the center's lawyers standing in front of the Supreme Court on Jan. 10, looking plenty chuffed about that morning's oral arguments, which plainly went their way. The poet Robert Burns had a line for the subsequent developments: "The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men gang aft agley."*  

 

Here's the background, drawn in part from our previous coverage here and here.

My Proposal@MORE Today: UFT After Friedrichs -

I heard from Roseanne McCosh on my recent Friedrichs post:

MORE to Talk Friedrichs at Saturday Meeting, Roseanne Sends Mulgrew a Message

I agree with you.  I will not ask people to support a union that hamstrings its membership every chance they get.  Their abuse of power is no less sinful than Cuomo's, Gates', Koch brothers', Christie's etc... Calling for automatic support sends them the message that they can continue to treat us like shit and we'll happily pay them to do so. And it sends a message to the membership that Leadership's management style can't be that bad if even their critics are asking us to support them.  That is absolutely the wrong message to send at this time.   Leverage given away can never be regained---make them earn the support. 

And ATRs seemed to like my proposal on putting dues in an escrow account pending a reform package from Unity:

Dues to Escrow Accounts, ATRs and Friedrichs: Should ATRs Keep Paying Union Dues?

When I get a chance to speak at the discussion at the MORE meeting today I will offer the following proposal for future post-election post-Friedrichs ruling - maybe for a MORE Summer2016 workshop:

I will propose that more take a position that we will support the leadership call to stay in the union for one-two years pending some package of reforms. Not promises but real constitutional change. Like voting on dues increases. Scaled dues depending on salary (both in the MORE recently amended platform thanks to Jeff Kaufman). Proportional rep on ex bd and aft/nysut delegates so more voices get heard. Reduce power of retirees. If no signs after a year we look to organize all those who left and want to leave into an alt uft challenging for bargaining rights. 

There will be arguments that the only way to change the UFT is to stay in and fight Unity. But when there is so little chance to win more than a sliver of control and say there comes a point where you have to pull the plug.
To those out there who just want to pull their dues and do nothing - that is worse than even Unity because that kills any hope of unionism. Stay and fight or leave and fight but fight.


Saturday 2/6 12:00-3:00pm: UFT After Friedrichs

Join us for a lively discussion on the future of our union after the Supreme Court's decision. What can UFT leadership do to better engage our members? How will the decision impact rank and file members?

Workshops on how to petition in your chapter to get signatures so that MORE/New Action slate can appear on the UFT officers ballot in May.

We will also meet in local groups by districts/boroughs to organize our campaign, distribution network, and mutual support.

Pizza, soft drinks, and snacks will be served
Free Childcare will be available available
CUNY Graduate Center
34th st and 5th ave Midtown NYC

Room 5414
Facebook Event Here

Childcare will be available

How a Friedrichs Loss Can Become a Win, Making Taylor Law Unconstitutional

...labor... needs more people engaging in a debate about what, in theory, could come the day after an adverse Friedrichs decision. That shouldn’t be limited to toying with the legal implications of the Court’s logic, but also what kind of mobilizations, boycotts and—dare we dream?—strikes could be launched in the days and weeks after....In These Times

My own thoughts have been skirting around the edges of the benefits of a Friedrichs negative decision and might actually lead to a new level of organizing. I've been thinking about Detroit where they are trying to pin the sickout on a totally weak and ineffective union. This article by Shaun Richman, a former AFT organizing director, doesn't go there -- as I wouldn't expect him to. Here he takes the free speech argument behind Friedrichs and runs down the field with it over the possible implications.

the parties behind Friedrichs—egged on by Justice Alito—are lodging a wildly expansive argument that every interaction that a union has with its government employer is inherently political. Bargaining demands, grievances, labor-management committees, job actions: all of it, goes the Friedrichs argument, is political, thereby making the collection of agency fees compelled political speech.
Let’s think about some of the implications of this argument. For starters, the Taylor law that tells CUNY faculty and staff that they will be fined and their leaders imprisoned if they strike seems clearly to be a coercive restriction on their chosen method of political speech. If the Professional Staff Congress is hit with any penalties for either planning or going through with a job action, one hopes they can time their appeals to reach higher level courts after the Friedrichs decision comes down in June.

 An article worth reading:

How ‘Friedrichs’ Could Actually Unleash Unions from Decades of Free Speech Restrictions

BY Shaun Richman

Share878 TweetReddit1 StumbleUpon0EmailPrint

The CUNY Professional Staff Congress, during a civil disobedience action in November 2014. (PSC)