California schoolteachers' lawsuit over mandatory union dues moving forward

A federal lawsuit filed by a group of California public school teachers saying mandatory payment of union dues violates their right of free speech is moving forward in the courts…

In essence, in California and 25 other “closed shop” states, the teachers by law must join a union as a condition of employment and pay union dues to keep their jobs.

Union reps say those fees help their efforts to improve workplace safety, for instance, and get better contracts for all employees. They add that teachers can opt-out of paying dues that fund political activities.

Unless there are some unique laws regarding unions, I don’t know how the court could come to any conclusion other than to declare mandatory unions unconstitutional.

Public schools are government institutions, and as such they can’t force anyone to join an organization that they don’t want to, much less support it financially. Huge first amendment violation and I would be shocked if California wins.

The SCOTUS has always been very protective of a citizen’s right to associate with or support whatever group or groups they do or do not want to. I can only imagine the lower court will follow that kind of precedent.

That’s interesting. My little sister is a teacher, but only doing subbing work right now. So she is in the teachers union, she is also working part time at the grocery store deli which also requires her to be in a union. So she is paying 2 union dues out of her measly paychecks to unions that don’t help her, And in essence don’t help any new or part time employees. :shrug:

Yeah but she is helping to keep union leaders above the poverty line. :wink:


Well since closed shops are a violation of the Taft -Hartley act. They do not exist in California or any other state of this Union.:shrug:

Fox news breaking with reality to push their far right wing lunacy once again. :rolleyes:


Joining a union should be optional but, on principle, I don’t think anyone should be fighting union dues unless they are willing to sign a contract stating that they are not entitled to any of the privileges or benefits resulting from union negotiation or action.

Nah it’s to help get more Democrats elected. That’s one of the reasons many people fight union dues. They don’t help the workers they help the union bosses and support candidates that the rank and file don’t support.

I hope they go the way of the Wisconsin teacher’s unions :smiley: There may have been a time for unions but the government unions are an oxymoron.

Right now our teachers are planning a strike. That’s going to win friends and influence people…oh and “worker safety” what a riot


All teachers unions need to go. It’s time for We The People to take back our education system.

They may not require membership in the union, but they do require membership dues to be paid as a condition of employment.

I really don’t see the difference between forcing people to join a union and forcing people to pay union dues. That’s like saying PPACA doesn’t require people to be insured, only that they pay for insurance.

That could go the other way too. Non union members get a raise, but the non unions don’t.:They would have to sign the same form.:smiley:

I agree completely.

Everyone should have the right to negotiate their own contract.

My cousin’s wife is a public school teacher in a ‘Right to Work’ State.

She is a physics teacher and was in substantial demand. So she negotiated her own contract that provides for more pay than she would get from the union contract. The union contract treated all teachers of equal education and ‘seniority’ equally, regardless of how hard it was to fill the position.

And, since she is not part of the union, and not under their contract, she pays them no dues and can keep all the money she negotiated for.

I would agree with you. everyone should have the rights that she does.

When my wife was a nurse at Providence, they had an agreement with the nurse’s union. Nurses were not required to join the union or to pay dues. However, those who did not join were not guaranteed hours (i.e. could not be sent home due to low census), and were the first to go when a layoff occurred, regardless of seniority (i.e. a new hire union member would be retained before a 15 year veteran non-member). However, the agreement required all nurses to be on the same pay scale, regardless of their membership.

My wife thought it quite fair that the terms were outlined up-front, and did not join the union. But that just led to frequent emails and visits from the shop foreman requesting that she join. Despite her requests to be left alone, apparently it was also written into the contract that the union was free to solicit membership among non-members, and there was no “opt-out” clause from those solicitations. The representative assigned to her wasn’t the worst, and she had lots of horror stories of others pestered to the point of harassment. Complaints filed with the union and the management were ignored or dismissed as “part of the collective bargaining agreement.”

Too bad neither side can just be content with what they have. It seems the unions want 100% membership and will harass to get it. And the right-to-work folk want 0% membership and will whine and complain to get it.

I’m really sorry if this is uncharitable, but the snarky comments with the little emoticon at the end are really condescending. So people who may be on this side of the issue are loons?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit