On Wednesday, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS for us Supreme Court watchers) released their opinion on the case of Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31.  For the majority and dissenting opinions visit: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf.

Janus, as it’s popularly known, reverses an earlier decision (Abood v. Detroit Board of Education) made by the Court in 1977.  In Abood, the Court ruled that a public sector union could charge an agency fee to any person who decided not to be a member of the public sector union.  This fee is charged for the work that the union does on behalf of all of it’s represented population, not just it’s members. For example, when I, a local association president, go in to negotiate our  collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the school district, that CBA addresses the work environment, compensation, and benefits for all teachers, counselors, school psychologists, instructional coaches, etc.. not just the dues paying members of the union.  This fee provides our local union officers compensation for the work that we do on behalf of the fee payer. In Washington State, agency fee payers can complete paperwork asking for reimbursement for any of those fees that have not been spent on their behalf but paid out for/toward activities/benefits that only members of the association can access (such as members only scholarships).

This isn’t the first time a case has come to the Court on this issue. Two years ago I wrote about the Frederich case here https://storiesfromschool.org/understanding-the-frederich-case/. This might help break down the challenges to a case like this and address some legal lingo associated with Janus, as well.  The Court ruled 4-4 in Frederich (Associate Justice Scalia had recently passed away and his seat remained vacant, hence only 8 members of this court).

So, two years later, with a Court of nine, the question posed in Janus is whether requiring an individual to pay the agency fee to a union is a violation of the individual’s First Amendment right to free speech.  The argument made by Janus and ruled by the majority of the Court (5-4) was that Janus’s requirement to pay the fee to a public sector union represents his agreement with speech that he may not condone.  Therefore his right to free speech was infringed upon by having to pay the agency fee.

So, on Wednesday, the Supreme Court issued their opinion and here’s what it boils down to:

• Agency fee payer status does not exist in public sector unions.
• Some teachers may choose to no longer become members because they want to save some money.
• Those non members have lost a right to union representation (including legal representation) in any disciplinary meeting unless (according to footnote 6 on page 22 of the decision) the nonmember asks for representation by the union. Then, the union may charge a fee for that grievance procedure.
• Fewer local dollars coming into the local union ultimately means fewer funds available to do the work.  

Why is this of concern?  Well here’s what our local association does:

• We provide 3 scholarships to local graduating seniors.
• We provide money in the form of grants to support classroom teachers. Our teachers use this to buy library books, guitar strings,  classroom snacks, materials, calculators, copy paper, student novels, etc…
• We provide scholarships to our members.  This has purchased: robots for student use, guitars, attendance at college classes, and professional development at our local ESD.
• We provide dinners and refreshments for evening parent teacher conferences so teachers can be fed when they have to stay at school late.
• We bargain benefits, work environment, employee rights, and now, salaries.

These dollars support teaching and learning 

It’s not that I can’t see the argument held by the Majority in Janus. I’m an AP Government teacher who teaches civil liberties and the judicial process to my students each year. While it might be a fair argument to make, as a government and politics teacher, I learned a long time ago to see competing arguments as just that.  As a teacher and advocate for civic engagement, I instead encourage my students to embrace questions instead of opinions. So here are my questions:

• What will bargaining look like now?
• Will our local members remain committed to one another?

And here’s the big question:

• Will our association continue to serve as a beacon of teacher leadership and strong student advocacy if resources are depleted?