Post on 05-Jul-2020
transcript
Sara Gjerdrum, Executive Director Christina Clark, General Counsel
March 2015
1
» PELRA 1971 » Public sector collective bargaining » Employees vote to select exclusive representative » Opt-in union membership » 85% fair share fee allowance » Payroll deduction for dues and fair share fees
2
US Cool » First Amendment Permits
Public Sector “Agency Shop” » Permissible to Require
Employees to Share Costs of Collective Representation
» But Cannot Require Employees to Share in Political Contributions or Political Expression Unrelated to Collective Representation
3
1977 --NYC blackout --World Trade Center completed --Panama Canal returned to Panama --Apple II computers --President Carter grants pardon to Vietnam War “draft dodgers” --Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Amnesty International --Vikings lose to Oakland in Super Bowl (32-14) --The last execution by guillotine in France --Minnesotan Dorothy Benham is Miss America --Elvis Presley dies at age 42 --Star Wars, Roots, and Saturday Night Fever --Christina starts college
4
Knox (2012)
Harris (2014)
Friedrichs? (2016)
5
Knox (2012)
Is a new notice and opt-out required for mid-year dues
increase?
Court invites an Abood challenge: “Our prior decisions approach, if
they do not cross the limit of what the First Amendment can
tolerate.”
Harris (2014)
May a state require home aides to pay a representation fee to the union they
selected to represent them?
No – Abood doesn’t extend to such “quasi- public employees” – but then goes out of its way to call
Abood an “anomaly,” “questionable analysis,” “questionable
foundations,” “unsupported” 6
» Knox (SCt-2012), fueled Harris (SCt-2010) & spawned Friedrichs (SCt petition pending 2015) as well as other challenges: ˃ to opt-opt procedures (Lum) (CA) (2014); ˃ to agency fee and resignation and objection
process (Kennedy) (CA)(2014) ˃ to exclusive representation (Beckhart) (KY)
(2013)
7
» Harris (SCt-2014) Spawned More Challenges and Fueled Others
˃ To Exclusive Representation & Fees for Home Aides/Childcare Workers: Bierman (MN, 8th Cir. 2014), D’Agostino (MA 2014), Jarvis (NY 2014), Schlaud (MI, 6th Cir. 2010) (6th), Centeno (WA 2014), Greene (MN 2014))
˃ To Membership Drop Periods: (Pulaski, Arkansas & Michigan ULPs)
˃ To agency fee generally: Juber (CT 2014), Rauner (IL 2014), Hamidi (CA 2014), Mass Labor Charges (2014))
8
» Friedrichs (certiorari petition pending in SCt):
˃ In lower courts, challenged California’s opt-out system as unconstitutional
˃ Minnesota has opt-in, was considered to be “safe”)
˃ But Supreme Court petition now seeks to overturn Abood entirely
9
ME
NY
PA MD MD
VA NC
WV
SC GA
OH
TN AL
KY
MS
IN
MI
IL
WI
MO
FL
AR
LA
IA
MN
KS
NE
ND
WY
SD
MT
CO
NM
AZ
UT
OK
TX
ID
NV
WA
CA
OR
AK
Agency Fee
Right to Work/Shirk
10
ME
NY
PA MD MD
VA NC
WV
SC GA
OH
TN AL
KY
MS
IN
MI
IL
WI
MO
FL
AR
LA
IA
MN
KS
NE
ND
WY
SD
MT
CO
NM
AZ
UT
OK
TX
ID
NV
WA
CA
OR
AK
Bargaining
Bargaining Prohibited 11
So What Does This Mean? • Immediate loss of all fee-payers who have not
converted to membership • Loss of unengaged members who do not see value of
union membership
• Membership loss will be greater if loss of fair share combined with loss of payroll deduction and attacks on collective bargaining 12
No Agency Fee? Opportunities… It’s Up To Us
Opportunities
• Run issue based campaigns that engage members and fee payers
• Win on issue based campaigns demonstrating union difference
• Enhance and test worksite structures • Engage members and move them to activist to leader • Educate members around union difference • Build POWER • Move to true organizing culture
13
The Value of Belonging
¡Sí, Se Puede! 14