Collectiv Collective Bargaining

The issue at hand is whether or not it is a violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution to require non-union members to pay agency fees. Agency fees are used to pay for representing employees and negotiating contracts, in addition to lobbying activities to support collective bargaining negotiations or secure advocates. The argument is that because these fees are used for lobbying, it potentially violates the first amendment right to prevent individuals from funding political speech that they disagree with. In addition, the argument is that collective bargaining is also political since wages and benefits that unions negotiate on also come out of the public budget. The other side of the argument is that paying these fees contributes to collective bargaining and prevents individuals from free loading representation by the union in negotiations of wages, breaks, etc. This specific case dealt with the California Teachers association and the role its union plays in funding lobbying that is not supported by certain teachers that are non-union members. Agency shop laws require for dues to be paid as a condition of employment.

This case is about public teachers’ ability to choose their speech was being violated due to state involved agency requires public employees to pay union “agency” fees include who are non-member of this agency .This court should reverse the lower court decision and hold that mandatory agency fees that is an equal portion of the bargaining costs violates public employees’ freedom of choose the speech that is protected by first amendment for two reasons. First, people who opted- out or non-members were required to pay fees for union, and second, fees were automatically taking out from their paychecks.

California Teachers Association, , a suit brought by 10 non-union California teachers who say that making them pay “fair share fees” to a union, even if only for the reason of collective bargaining, requires them to support an organization they oppose politically, and this is a violation of their free speech rights. The Supreme Court adjudged to be affirmed opinion per curiam. The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court; which left the lower court ruling as the controlling final decision in which they sided with the union. on April 8 2016, a petition for rehearing was filed; on April 13 the Supreme Court has distributed the case for conference on April 29, 2016. An opposing ruling in Friedrichs could call for public unions to function in all 50 states as they do in the 25 right-to-work states that prohibit unions from collecting dues from non-members, even though those unions bargain collectively for members and non-members alike. Right-to-work legislation means a death of unions via the "free rider problem." The capability to be represented by a union for no cost has led to a rise in employees who obviously gain the benefits of the union without having to pay their fair share. Not only do unions lose the agency fees that help keep their doors open, but many workers who otherwise may have joined the union because of the often small difference in cost between agency fees and union dues simply decline to pay anything at

“There is no such thing as freedom of choice unless there is freedom to refuse,” stated David Hume. The case Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, which just recently began oral hearings the week of January 11th, “centers on the questions of whether union dues are inherently political—and if they are… whether employees who are not union members can be compelled to pay them” (KQED News). Those in favor of the plaintiff, Rebecca Friedrichs, a teacher from Orange County, believe that employees who are not union members should not have to pay union dues because the CTA cannot require its nonmembers to pay for political causes, seeing as doing so compels them to identify with a public policy cause, a violation of their First Amendment rights. Those against the eradication of union dues for non-union members believe the fees are necessary because the union has a legal duty to represent all teachers at the bargaining table, even those who are not part of the union; if nonmembers can be represented by the union without paying any fee, there would be a strong incentive to become a “free rider” and not join the union, leading to a weakened force at the negotiation table. Because this requirement of dues is a direct violation of the Constitution, teachers that aren’t members of the California Teachers Association should not have to support the union and its

Campaigning is something that is done in many aspects of life. It breaks down to basically creating arguments to sell yourself or your company to a group of people. President hopefuls set out on a campaign trail every four years to try and get people to vote for them. I always thought that this was the only form of campaigning, but I was incorrect. Employers and Unions both use campaigning to get workers to either avoid, or join a union. Each side has their own tactics and goals to achieve. I plan to analyze both sides and show the pros and cons of each.

Collective bargaining was a result of a Keokuk, Iowa teacher strike in 1970. The salary of the teachers was the main reason the KEA and school board was vigorously divided. When a deadlock was reached between the two groups a mediator came in to help. The school board shot down what the mediator came up with for a solution. According to Daily Gate City, “When the school board adopted a salary schedule April 17 that was $21,000 (or $107 per teacher) less of a package than what was recommended by the mediator, the teachers, with community support went on strike”(Daily Gate City). The Keokuk Education Association ended up in court due to the teachers protesting and state public employees were not allowed to go on strike. They refused to stop the

on the requirement that all California state teachers pay union dues even if the teacher is not part

When I saw this topic on the schedule, I honestly was not sure what it was about and that intrigued me. The title “organizing and winning” had me very interested, so I decided to attend this event, not knowing what exactly I would be learning. Because there were so few who attended this specific event, this presentation was more of a discussion. There were 3 students and a few other staff members. The man who was in charge of this event was a younger male with a “Unite Here!” sweatshirt on and when I walked in I was interested as to what that meant; I soon realized what it stood for. This presentation was about the unionization of workers in the workplace. Being more of a discussion, he opened with introductions and then asked us who we were

Washington post stated that teachers strike “Snarl traffic for Chicago commuters thanks to a downtown rally that was expected to draw thousands of teachers and their allies, including fast-food workers, university students and professors and community groups.”(Washington Post-Chicago teachers go on strike, shutting down nation’s third-largest school system) This is a serious point at issue, because stagnation of commuters will eventually give rise to a pecuniary problems for entire city. Another part of money issues of teacher’s strike is taxes. As well as the monetary problem for whole city, too much burden for the individuals can be followed up. According to Federalist, “Cost and quantity of teacher absences seem to be rising, according to recent research: “School districts spent nearly $335 million on substitute teachers during the 2012-2013 school year, with 115 districts reporting. In 2014-2015, with 118 districts reporting, they spent nearly $356 million, a 6 percent increase in three years.” (the Federalist-11 Problems With Teachers Shutting Down School) The vast majority of K-12 teachers are public employees. So when they take an unnecessary day off to make a political point, they are forced their employers — the public — to subsidize political speech we all do not agree with. This is a violation of the public trust placed in teachers, and it erodes confidence in them and their

According to the author, Local Unions are often overlooked, but they are important as well because they represent an alternative to the national unions and collective bargaining. The idea of a local agreement is quite far-fetched, especially if a majority of labor market were to become organized by independent local unions. Local unions challenge the basic form of national unionism, the principal of national association of all workers in the same occupation or industryAccording to the author, Local Unions are often overlooked, but they are important as well because they represent an alternative to the national unions and collective bargaining. The idea of local agreement is quiet far-fetched, especially if a majority of labor market were to

In my research one of the cases involving collective bargaining rights of a police union in Montgomery County, Maryland. Essentially, what occurred with the police union, was that in 2011 it had its power to challenge certain basic police-chief directives taken away. According to the article, this action was taken against the union for holding up 15 different policy changes since 2008. The policy changes were considered to be essential to public safety, and included crucial updates on the distribution of critical police equipment as well as an update to the departments “Use of Force” policies. The hold-ups were all due to the unions constant challenges. This story shows the negative effects of collective bargaining rights when it comes to public employees.

I believe if fair representation was negotiated in the collective bargaining agreement, it would be fair for the court to rules that the union has a duty to present these former employees. The sixteen employees were still members of the union; the union still had an obligation to represent them on this issue. Even though the employees were laid off, the union had a responsibility to fairly represent those employees because they were still paying their dues. One of the benefits that the union negotiated with the employer and employee was that if the company experience laid off the employees will be offered future employment opportunities if job opens again. The company laid off hundred employees in 1981 and in 1992 the company started to performance

In Australia, industrial relations system has been shaped by diverse legislative Acts and political forces coupled with judicial decisions at both the state and federal level. This evident in the sense that there have been diverse amendments of the 1904 Act in light of increased pressures in the industrial sector. This elicited mixed reactions from the employees and employers, among other stakeholders in the industry. However, due to the disadvantages and/or drawbacks of the centralized system of collective bargaining in comparison to the advantages or positive aspects of the decentralized approach of collective bargaining, employers have favored departure from the centralized wage-fixing. Against this backdrop, it behooves us to explore

Collective bargaining is the process by which conditions of employment are negotiated between management, and the labor organization representing employees in the bargaining unit. However, “collective bargaining refers to a situation in which union members and officials meet with an intent to resolve any issues or conflicts, in an attempt to maintain relationships” (Holley, Jennings, & Wolters, 2012, p. 243). The collective bargaining process relies on four aspects: recognition of the meeting, meeting with appropriate parties, bargaining in good faith, and incorporating the reached agreement (Adam, 1997). Nevertheless, collective bargaining activities are governed by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The NLRA requires bargaining

Collective Bargaining and A Strong Role for Unions Is Not Constructive (Advantageous) to Organisations in Today’s Economic Conditions