The U.S. Supreme Court on June 14 affirmed the right of states to forbid public-sector unions from using non-member fees for election-related purposes without obtaining the permission of non-members.
By a unanimous ruling, though with three votes partially concurring, the high court overturned a Washington state Supreme Court decision that a law imposing the permission requirement violates the union’s First Amendment rights.
“As applied to public-sector unions, (Washington state law) is not fairly described as a restriction on how the union can spend “its” money; it is a condition placed upon the union’s extraordinary state entitlement to acquire and spend other people’s money,” wrote Justice Antonin Scalia in the opinion of Davenport v. Washington Education Association.
At issue is the relation between the Washington Education Association and non-union members benefiting from the union’s collective bargaining achievements. Washington state law allows the union to charge fees to non-members, but a subsequent initiative instituted the necessity of express authorization.
A U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1997 prohibits the use of objecting non-member fees for purposes not related to the collective bargaining duties.
The Washington Education Association as a result of the permission requirement initiative sent non-members information twice a year informing them of their rights to object to the spending of their fees on political objectives.
But in 2001 the union, which collectively bargains for 70,000 public educational employees, was sued twice — once by the state and again by several non-members who argued the WEA failed to get authorization before making election-related spending with non-member money.
What it means for Arizona
John Wright, president of the Arizona Education Association, said the ruling will not have an effect in Arizona because the state, which is a right-to-work state, does not have agency shop agreements.
He said he was critical of the decision of the American Education Association, which filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of Davenport, because it appeared the association was not interested in the constitutional question presented by the case.
“It’s about reducing union influence in politics,” said Wright, who believes the opinion is an “intrusion” into practices of the WEA.
Though results are yet to be seen, Wright said he is concerned about the current makeup of the Supreme Court, which he believes could hand down future decisions that can limit the influence of unions.
“I think it’s a safe assessment this current Supreme Court is not friendly to unions or union activity and all of us that are involved in unions need to recognize that,” Wright said.