Court upholds Philly Unions’ Clout

Court upholds Philly Unions' Clout

Well, at least, they didn't take it abroad

Mar. 31, 2016

[UPDATE: On Tuesday, the Supreme Court split evenly onFriedrichs 5. California Teachers Clan,a result made possible by the recent death of Justice Antonin Scalia. The 4-4 effect affirmed, without a written decision, the ruling of the lower court, which had ruled that public unions may collect mandatory fees from non-members. This ways that Philadelphia unions go to proceed a lot of money, and thus a lot of influence in our local elections, at least for now. However, the Supreme Court'southward ruling is non binding precedent, and a total Court (whenever we get i) is likely to rehear the example and make a total, precedential decision sometime in the future.]

Below, a story The Citizen ran concluding fall about what this case means for Philly and its unions:

Today, the U.Southward. Supreme Court heard arguments on a example that volition take a profound affect on elections in Philadelphia by either upholding or vastly reducing the role that unions play in our local elections.

Unions in Philadelphia are incredibly influential when it comes to the election procedure, property corking sway over both who tin can run and who will win. The incomparable John "Johnny Md" Dougherty is the spider at the center of this web of marriage influence, rallying unions beyond the city to marshal with his IBEW Local 98 to sway elections.

And boy tin can they sway elections. Just last yr, unions had a huge role in electing Jim Kenney as Mayor, Helen Gym to Urban center Council, and Kevin Dougherty to the state Supreme Courtroom, to name just a few. These unions become their influence the sometime-fashioned way: past buying information technology.

In 2015, Johnny Doc's wedlock commonage gave $507,000 to Kenney , plus $200,000 to a pro-Kenny PAC. All told, unions spent $3 1000000 for Kenney final twelvemonth. Over the years, Johnny Doc's team has spent $129,000 to back up Council President Darrell Clarke's oftentimes-unopposed bid for re-election, $95,000 on former Councilwoman Marian Tasco, and $453,000 on State Representative Dwight Evans. And Doc's not alone; the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers spent $399,000 on local elections in 2022 alone.

All this money buys advertisements, campaign mailers, door-to-door canvassers and get-out-the-vote manpower. That and inside influence with our elected officials.

But the Supreme Court could change all that. The case, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Clan , pits a California teacher against her ain wedlock. Essentially, public unions—those that represent teachers, municipal workers, and the like—are funded in two ways: mandatory fees from all employees, and voluntary ante from spousal relationship members. In a manner, these unions are like college fraternities, which receive general funding from all students through student activities fees, and once more from those who cull to join them.

Back in 1977, the Supreme Courtroom upheld the mandatory fees against free speech complaints from public employees. The employees so, as now, argued that being forced to pay money to a marriage compels them to back up speech and other spousal relationship activities with which they disagree, in violation of their Starting time Amendment rights. The Court in 1977 split the infant, saying that mandatory fees could merely be used for strictly administrative tasks, such as collective bargaining, contract administration, and treatment grievances. Voluntary dues, though, were permitted for political activity.

If the Court rules confronting the unions in Friedrich (which information technology seems inclined to do based on language in an opinion from a couple of years ago), it could price our city'south unions millions of dollars. It would hateful that all of the fees that are beingness paid to unions— fifty-fifty those to support non-political collective bargaining—would have to be solicited and contributed voluntarily. "Free riders" would emerge, and lots of spousal relationship-eligible employees could skip the contribution while notwithstanding reaping the rewards of collective bargaining.

This could have a cascading issue on our elections. With less coin in administrative fees, unions would accept to divert funds that would otherwise go towards campaign activities in order to ensure the continued operation of the unions' virtually basic functions. Less coin to contribute ways less influence and less power for our local unions. If their influence is lessened, and then it may affect the contracts that unions are able to negotiate with authorities, which could striking rank-and-file union members right in the pocketbook.

This goes across Philadelphia. In the 2022 presidential year elections, unions beyond the country spent $i.seven billion on campaign activities. With another presidential election looming this year, the Court'southward conclusion could have a major touch on on how much money is available to pro-spousal relationship candidates.

Which is why local unions volition practice whatsoever they tin to observe a mode around the new limitations. "A ruling against the union position would exist a big public relations blow, but I don't see it having much outcome," says political consultant Larry Ceisler. "If wedlock members cull to not pay these fees, they will be ostracized past their fellow employees and will be made to experience uncomfortable. This ruling could bring virtually changes, but not necessarily the crippling blow the anti-matrimony advocates would hope for."

On the other paw, accept a look at what happened amidst the anti-union fervor in Wisconsin. In 2011, Governor Scott Walker eviscerated unions' abilties to collect funds and collectively bargain, and removed mandatory fees from non-members, just as the Supreme Court is contemplating in Friedrich . Matrimony membership and so dropped by nigh ii-thirds ; some unions were forced to shut down or merge due to lack of membership.

Wisconsin was the worst-case scenario for unions. The Supreme Courtroom'due south determination in Friedrich probably won't accept the same devastating effect because it would just replicate one of the more than modest restrictions that Wisconsin now has. And, Philadelphia lacks the stiff anti-union current that exists in Wisconsin, meaning that unions and politicians are likely to piece of work together to get effectually whatsoever restrictions placed on them. Still, Friedrich could represent a massive setback for the political power of public unions.

Besides bad for Johnny Doc that he could only get his brother on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and not the U.S. Supreme Court. He could really use a friend among the nine correct now.

Photo header: Flickr/Marking Fischer

longandurn53.blogspot.com

Source: https://thephiladelphiacitizen.org/friedrich-supreme-court-upholds-philly-unions-clout/

Court upholds Philly Unions’ Clout