ISSUE: Does having members who opt out of a union continue to pay agency fees violate the First Amendment to the Constitution? Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association 136 S. Ct. 1083, 194 L. Ed. 2d 255 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 was decided by the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit in San Francisco in favor of union fees on the basis of the case
First Amendment rights are like an antique; they have been around for a while, and people will treasure them for years to come. Americans have valued First Amendment rights since the constitution was written, and still do to this day. As well as valuing them, Americans are also willing to fight for their rights; whether it is by going to court, picketing, or protesting. As a result of this willingness to fight, we have seen many court cases and protests about First Amendment rights, and will likely continue to see these for a long time.
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.
People express themselves by speaking their thoughts or opinions, and even by the way they dress. People nowadays are being violated of the first amendment, right to free speech. Luckily, the first amendment backs them up and their rights. Although many Americans think they have freedom of speech, in reality, they do not because they’re not free to fully express their opinions, nor can they fully express themselves through clothing.
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
Voting is one of the most commonly discussed things in America as of now. The two main candidates that we have to vote for are Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. We will find out our new president in just a couple of days. It is kind of sad seeing our president for 8 years leave after all the great tasks he has accomplished for America.
America is known as home of the free, though it wasn’t always like this. Before the year 1791 america was ruled by the british king was being abusive in his ruling. In 1776 America had pulled away from the ruling and became independent. To insure that they would never have to go through problems like that again they made the ‘Bill of Rights’ which describes each freedoms a person has. We have the mistreatment of the british to thank for our right of privacy and allowed us to have a non oppressive government.
In 2015, Presidential candidate Donald Trump proposed that he would consider shutting down mosques in the United States. Now being president, he created an executive order mandating the closure of all mosques which is a violation of The First Amendment of the Constitution which states that the “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
In the ruling for Citizens United v. FECC, the Supreme Court stated that the 1st Amendment does apply to Corporations and Unions and thus the government is not able to limit their political speech. In this case content based speech restriction, this fell into strict scrutiny under the compelling government interest test and the framework of the 1st Amendment outweighs the government’s interest in restricting the freedom of speech processed by corporations and unions.
I am advocating for ending the “One Person, One Vote” method of voting on referendums and for candidates that is currently employed in the United States of America. The One Person, One Vote strategy, henceforth referred to as 1p1v, has several key flaws that have made it an unfair and often inefficient method of deciding what the best decision with the largest net social product, or who the candidate most intensely supported by constituents, truly is. Making collective decisions based on majority rule is an idea as old as democracy, and in theory, it seems like the right idea. The idea of proportional and equal voting just seems, fair, doesn’t it? However, the issue with majority rule is that the majority can completely disregard the justifiable and well-founded interests of the minority. This problem is known as “Tyranny of the majority”. The current 1p1v system that we have in place has proven to allow the tyranny of the majority to take place from issues as petty as marijuana legalization, to incredibly important issues like same-sex marriage. The 1p1v system fails to give proportional weight to those with greater interest in an issue, leading to inequality. But if the 1p1v system does not work, and the entire voting system must be restructured to ensure fairness and equality, where do we go from here? It is well known that the most important issue to Americans is the economy , so I believe we should model our government and method of voting after the one institution that
From the time it was first proposed in 1789, the Bill of Rights was controversial. The founding fathers had already considered adding a Bill of Rights in the original 1787 Constitution, mainly because they knew the people feared a powerful central government and formally stating their rights in this new document would appease them. They did not add it, however, thinking it was not really necessary. Each state had their own version of a Bill of Rights anyway. The framers of the Constitution decided that just because rights were not enumerated for the individual states in the Constitution did not mean that the federal government controlled the lives of every citizen. The debate over the Bill of Rights came down to the Federalists
The First Amendment states that a person has the right to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of press. Although these things are clearly stated in the constitution, these rights are beginning to be compromised, and taken from the American people. Many people in America are not able to say their views in fear of offending someone else with the comments. This is a problem that many people are facing especially on the right side of the political spectrum. Some people believe that people should not be able to speak their minds in public places, but that is wrong because the constitution states that any person has the right to say what they want to.
The first amendment, of the Constitution, protects all citizens from Congress making laws that “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Most U.S citizens how this amendment, or at least a summary of it, memorized. Citizens have the right to speak their mind as they sit fit, practice any religion, and protest. However, in modern times, it is understandable to see why this is not entirely true. Court decisions have put many restrictions on the liberties presented in the 1st amendment. A citizen cannot use religion as an excuse for sacrifices, or protest in violent fashions. The most controversial, and complicated, restrictions are those prohibiting certain kinds of speech. One of the Supreme is that obscenity is not protected under the freedom of speech. A problem quickly raise was: what, exactly, is obscenity? Under Miller v California, to be obscene “a publication must, taken as whole, appeal to prurient interest, must contain patently offensive depictions or descriptions of specified sexual conduct, and on the whole have no serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.” It made sense to ban specific types of speech that was, at the root, meant to be hateful or obscene. However, Indianapolis legislator, in American Booksellers Association v. Hudnut, used
America is known to be a land where we as American citizens can be anything we want to be. As humans, we all face adversities that mold the way we carry out decisions and have an impact on the way we make decisions and view situations. American citizens have the right to vote for our leaders, and it is vital to exercise this freedom. The First Amendment constitutes our freedom of speech, but if not properly exercise our right to vote, how can we justify protesting the outcome of policies.
Unions have a considerable impact on the payment and work of both unionized and non-unionized workers. This report presents current data on unions’ effect on wages, fringe benefits, total compensation, pay inequality, and workplace protections. Unions not only improve workers’ benefits, they also contribute to due process and provide a voice for workers at the workplace and in the United States as a whole. Since the formations of unions they have