Court May Dock Philly Unions’ Clout

Court May Dock Philly Unions' Clout

The Friedrich case could mean less money—and less influence—for Philly unions

Jan. 11, 2016

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on a case that will take a profound impact on elections in Philadelphia past 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 process, holding great sway over both who can run and who will win. The incomparable John "Johnny Doc" Dougherty is the spider at the center of this web of spousal relationship influence, rallying unions across the city to marshal with his IBEW Local 98 to sway elections.

And boy can they sway elections. Merely final year, unions had a huge part in electing Jim Kenney every bit Mayor, Helen Gym to City Council, and Kevin Dougherty to the state Supreme Court, to name only a few. These unions become their influence the old-fashioned style: by buying it.

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

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

Simply the Supreme Courtroom could change all that. The case, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association , pits a California teacher confronting her ain union. Essentially, public unions—those that correspond teachers, municipal workers, and the like—are funded in two ways: mandatory fees from all employees, and voluntary dues from union members. In a mode, these unions are like college fraternities, which receive general funding from all students through student activities fees, and over again from those who cull to join them.

Dorsum in 1977, the Supreme Court upheld the mandatory fees against gratuitous speech complaints from public employees. The employees then, as now, argued that beingness forced to pay money to a spousal relationship compels them to back up oral communication and other spousal relationship activities with which they disagree, in violation of their Kickoff Subpoena rights. The Court in 1977 carve up the infant, saying that mandatory fees could simply be used for strictly administrative tasks, such every bit commonage bargaining, contract administration, and treatment grievances. Voluntary ante, though, were permitted for political activity.

If the Court rules against the unions in Friedrich (which it seems inclined to practise based on language in an stance from a couple of years ago), it could cost our metropolis's unions millions of dollars. It would mean that all of the fees that are being paid to unions— even those to support non-political collective bargaining—would have to be solicited and contributed voluntarily. "Free riders" would sally, and lots of matrimony-eligible employees could skip the contribution while yet reaping the rewards of collective bargaining.

This could have a cascading upshot on our elections. With less coin in administrative fees, unions would have to divert funds that would otherwise go towards campaign activities in order to ensure the continued performance of the unions' nearly bones functions. Less money to contribute means less influence and less ability for our local unions. If their influence is lessened, so it may affect the contracts that unions are able to negotiate with authorities, which could hit rank-and-file union members right in the pocketbook.

This goes beyond Philadelphia. In the 2022 presidential year elections, unions beyond the country spent $1.7 billion on campaign activities. With another presidential election looming this year, the Courtroom's decision could have a major touch on on how much money is available to pro-marriage candidates.

Which is why local unions volition do whatever they can to detect a way effectually the new limitations. "A ruling against the union position would be a big public relations accident, but I don't see it having much effect," says political consultant Larry Ceisler. "If marriage members choose to not pay these fees, they will be ostracized past their fellow employees and volition be fabricated to feel uncomfortable. This ruling could bring about changes, simply not necessarily the crippling accident the anti-union advocates would promise for."

On the other hand, take a look at what happened among 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 every bit the Supreme Court is contemplating in Friedrich . Matrimony membership and so dropped by nearly two-thirds ; some unions were forced to close downwardly or merge due to lack of membership.

Wisconsin was the worst-instance scenario for unions. The Supreme Court'southward decision in Friedrich probably won't have the same devastating effect considering it would only replicate ane of the more minor restrictions that Wisconsin now has. And, Philadelphia lacks the potent anti-matrimony current that exists in Wisconsin, meaning that unions and politicians are likely to work together to get around whatsoever restrictions placed on them. Still, Friedrich could represent a massive setback for the political power of public unions.

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

barnardtheand.blogspot.com

Source: https://thephiladelphiacitizen.org/supreme-court-friedrich-v-california-philadelphia-unions/

Court May Dock Philly Unions’ Clout