This fall Washington Policy Center signed onto an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in an important U.S. Supreme Court case impacting worker freedom.

The landmark Friedrichs v California’s Teacher Association case was filed by California teachers who argue the compulsory union dues they are forced to pay are unconstitutional.  The case raises the important question of whether the current practice in forced-union states of requiring public employees to pay union agency fees for the privilege of working violates the First Amendment rights of workers. 

If the Court rules in favor of the plaintiff, Rebecca Friedrichs, individual teachers would have the right to decide for themselves whether to join and support a union.  The implications of the Friedrichs case go far beyond teachers in California.  A ruling in favor of Friedrichs would essentially guarantee the right-to-work for all government employees in all 50 states.

WPC filed the brief in support Rebecca Friedrichs and her fellow teachers because every worker should have the right to decide whether they want to join or support a union.  Compelling workers to join and fund any organization, including a union, is fundamentally unfair and a violation of workers’ right to free speech—especially when that organization is as actively political as organized labor.   Workers are forced to pay the tab for politics with which they do not agree.

It seems Washington’s Attorney General, Bob Ferguson, disagrees.  AG Ferguson has signed onto an amicus brief in the Friedrichs case arguing against allowing government workers the freedom to choose.  The brief makes the mind-boggling argument that requiring unions to convince workers to voluntarily pay union dues and fees (instead of forcing them to) would be an unfair burden on unions.  The brief essentially argues that demonstrating the value of union membership would simply be too much work for unions:

“Eliminating agency fees as a secure funding mechanism may require unions to focus disproportionate effort on recruiting members and collecting fees, thereby diverting attention from bargaining and contract-administration responsibilities.  Moreover, the absence of secure funding may create skewed incentives for unions to make excessive bargaining demands or disparage management as antagonistic to labor, in order to encourage employees to give financial support.  State experiences show that a well-funded union is a more stable bargaining partner and that negotiating with such a partner ‘lead[s] to greater labor peace and stability’.”

What organization wouldn’t love to skip the time-consuming work of demonstrating their value in order to convince people to spend their hard-earned money to support them?  As for the idea that forced unionism somehow results in less excessive bargaining demands and “greater labor peace and stability”…this year’s wave of illegal teacher walkouts/strikespretty well debunks that theory.