Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s death leaves the court balanced between conservative and liberal positions on free speech rights and unions. Scalia and the court’s other conservatives comprised a winning five-block coalition that had been expected to issue a conservative interpretation in the Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association case and rule to limit mandatory union “fair share” dues. Now, a 4-4 decision in that case could mean the lower court ruling will prevail and preserve mandatory union contributions, at least for now.
The Supreme Court has been viewing free speech from different perspectives in different cases. The court’s decision in Citizens United had been allegedly to protect the first amendment free speech rights of corporations and unions. Yet, in the Friedrichs case, with Scalia’s vote, the court seemed ready to undermine union free speech over a twisted interpretation of coerced speech.
The Friedrichs case was orchestrated to hit the Supreme Court with the goal of undermining unions and weakening union free speech. However, the same Supreme Court is defending the notion that corporations have Constitutional free-speech rights.
The Friedrichs case is asking the court to find that everyone covered by a union’s collective bargaining cannot be required to pay membership dues to the union. The teacher named in the case, Rebecca Friedrichs, objects to paying what is called “fair share” to cover the cost of collective bargaining on behalf of all members even though she clearly benefits from collective bargaining.
Friedrichs is claiming her free speech rights are being violated because she is forced to pay union dues to the California Teachers Association that advocates for political positions she does not support. She is claiming she’s being forced to pay for political advocacy she opposes.
However, the California Teachers Association, like most public unions, segregates member dues into two separate pots, one used for collective bargaining and one used for political purposes. Union members who disagree with the political positions of the union can request that percent of their membership fees be returned to them. Friedrichs counters that all money paid to a union representing public employees is political and any separation is meaningless. She claims that forcing her to pay any union dues, even that portion used for collective bargaining on her behalf, violates her free speech.
If her position stands, union membership would plummet. Few workers would pay for collective bargaining if they can get it without cost.
We all pay for things we may not support but we pay a cost for living in a society.
Homeowners pay property taxes that support public schools. Many homeowners support comprehensive sex education but their schools may teach abstinence only sex ed. We may stand in silence at public meetings while the Lord’s Prayer is recited because we hold to a different religion. Nonprofit hospitals operating with tax breaks may decline to perform abortions and not offer prescription contraception.
We are looking for balance. Unbridled American capitalism demands less government regulation, lower corporate taxes, weaker unions, fewer worker protections, fewer social safety net provisions and more unrestricted money going to politicians that advance corporate goals. This subjugates the notion of free speech while protecting unregulated corporate marketing.
The burden for the court in the Friedrichs case is to decide if “fair share” union dues are fair and reasonable. The burden for government in general is to balance the rights of private corporations and private citizens with the greater social good.
In the Friedrichs case, maintaining “fair share” is clearly the greater social good.
Economic Theories
Republicans believe economic growth comes from decreasing costs for corporations so they become more profitable.
Democrats believe economic growth comes from investing in people so they can become more productive. (paraphrased from a column written by Sen. Daniel Biss in Crain’s Chicago Business)
Conviction Integrity Units
Aside from the guilt or innocence of Cleve Heidelberg (see “’Unimaginable Injustice’ 45 years in prison,” February 2016 Community Word), it’s clear America has an unenviable record on wrongful convictions. One possible remedy is establishment of conviction integrity units, divisions within prosecutorial offices that work to prevent, identify and correct false convictions. According to the annual report from the National Registry of Exonerations, there were 24 conviction integrity units in 2015, quadruple the number in 2011. In 2015, there were a record 58 exonerations through these units. This is not about clemency or releasing guilty people early. This is about releasing innocent people who were found guilty due to flaws in the process.
Incarceration of innocent people is not rare, and it’s not an aberration. It highlights a systemic problem. Failure to address this problem is a major national disgrace that undermines the foundation of democracy.
Liberation theologist Leonardo Boff said, “The opposite of poverty is not wealth, it is justice.”
Ed Yohnka, communications director for the ACLU in Illinois issued this statement:
“The ACLU of Illinois continues to be concerned that our criminal justice system is flawed and in need of fundamental repair. Our recent poll of Illinois voters shows that the public agrees with this view, as a full 74 percent of voters think that the criminal justice system in our state is ‘broken.’ There is a moment here that provides us with an opportunity to reform the criminal justice system in a way that minimizes convictions of the innocent and imprisons only people who pose a threat to our neighborhoods and communities.”
Clare Howard