Transcripts For CSPAN Compulsory Union Fees And First Amendment Rights 20170824

This is one hour. Welcome to the Heritage Foundation. We welcome use who join us on the heritage. Org as well as cspan networks. Wouldose inhouse, we affect courtesy to know that mobile devices have been turned off. For those watching online, you are welcome to ask questions online. By simply emailing speaker heritage. Org. Leading our discussion and welcoming our special guest is david croitzer our legal fellow. Our Senior Research fellow for labor markets and trade. Prior to joining us here at heritage, he taught economics at James Madison university, from 2004 to 2007. From 1984 to 2007. In 1994, he was a visiting economist at the food and Drug Administration and in the early 80s he was also a visiting economics instructor at ohio university. Please join me in welcoming david coritzer. [applause] i want to welcome all of you here online and watching on television to our event, protecting Public Employees First Amendment rights major cases challenging abood. Im going to give the bio, a brief introduction of our guests and then ill turn it over to collin and each speaker will speak for roughly 10 minutes and then well have plenty of time i hope for questions and answers afterwards. Rebecca fredericks served as a elementary schoolteacher early in her career. She was concerned about the policies and politics of the Teachers Union she was forced to join and ultimately support. As a result she was involved in a lawsuit suspending free rights and free stoerks to millions of free free speech and association to millions of public works. Employees. Her union filed with nine other Teachers Unions brought suits against the nea, uta and superintendents. Rebeccas editorials have been published on fox news. Com, the San Diego Union tribune and several other print and online outlets. Shes been a guest on many radio shows across the country including politico and the national review. And shes appeared on cbs, and fox news and nbc and fox business news. She now serves as a state policy expert. Glad youre here. Next is jacob hubert, jacob hubert is a judge at cases to protect economic liberty, the First Amendment and other Constitutional Rights in federal and state rights in illinois. Jacob received his b. A. From the university of illinois and his j. D. From the university of chicago law school. After law school he clerked for judge deborah cook. He then worked as an adjunct law professor, he has taught at several colleges of law. He has spoken at Federalist Society chapters at law schools across the country on topics involving economic liberty and judicial selection. Hes authored a book and is admitted to practice in the state of illinois as well as the United States Supreme Court, the United States court of appeals for the seventh circuit, the United States court of appeals for the sixth circuit and several other federal courts. Next is terry pell, hes at the end. Terry is president of the center for individual rights, a nonprofit Public Interest law firm located in washington, d. C. Dedicated to defense of individual liberties against the increasingly aggressive and Unchecked Authority of federal and state governments. Mr. Pell received his phd from notre dame in 1996, his jd. From Cornell Law School in 1981 and his b. A. From Haberford College in 1976. Mr. Pell worked as an attorney for fox law firm. He later served as general counsel and chief of staff for the National Drug abuse upon si. He joined cir in 1977. Collin sharky is the executive Vice President for american educators, a national nonunion teachers association. Collin overseas the day to day operations of uae, providing benefits to tens of thousands of members nationwide, expanding membership each year. Collin also overseas operations at aa501c. He also coleads the National Employee freedom week, a National Information campaign and coalition, now in its fifth year, highlighting the rights employees have regarding Union Memberships including opting out and joining nonunion groups. Before joining aae in 2008, collin served in Coalition Relations department at the Heritage Foundation. Collin graduated from the university of notre dame and im going to ask him to take over the program until q a, thank you all. Thank you, david, and thank you to the Heritage Foundation for agreeing to host this event and thank you to all of you for attending and everyone whos watching the live stream on cspan, i appreciate you tuning in. And thank you to the other panelists who made it to d. C. In august, and the fact that youre here means you didnt win the power ball last night. Welcome to National Employee freedom week. Its all week through august 26. I have to apologize and admit that National Employee freedom week as great as it is, had nothing 20 do with taylor swift dropping songs, the Solar Eclipse was, we set that up as a great start to the National Employee freedom week. My names colin sharky, im executive Vice President of american nonunion education. We serve all 50 states, all school environments, especially public district teachers and public charter teachers, they get their professional Association Benefits from uae, rather than joining the union, but we dont participate in collective bargaining, we dont support strikes or engage in part partisan politics. You can learn more about ae teachers. Org. Aae was founded as the only other offer for teachers if they wanted their Liability Insurance and professional Association Benefits. There were National Teachers that thought that was not fair, teachers deserved an option. We ask so much of teachers that it was unfair to force this unexpensive option. So aae was founded. And we found out very quickly, even though we offered great benefits, found out very quickly a problem. And that is that there are many teachers that dont have the choice of their association. We enjoy freedom of association in america, but for teachers, they can be forced to fund an association they dont want to belong to and therefore cant join an association that would better serve them or they believe would better serve them. Not only is that a problem that they cant choose their association, but if they do have that right, they may not know they have the right to kperexercise it. And if they do exercise it, they may not think its of benefit them to exercise it. Viewpoint as a result, were a plaintiff in a lawsuit youre going to hear about today. And five years ago, aae cofounded National Employee freedom week. This was an effort to concentrate attention in a positive, pro employee, focused way to inform the American Workforce about this problem as well as what rights they do have and how to exercise them. The response has been excellent, if you forget the fourletter words that some responses contained. National employee freedom was really just an opportunity to concentrate a coalition of organizations to draw attention to this. For the most part, employees just dont know that they have the right, and if they do know, they dont know how to kper how to exercise it and theyre afraid to ask. Aae and the Nevada Policy Institute which is a think tank based in nevada recognized this need and formed this Coalition Five Years ago and events like this and opeds and facebook and twitter are all part of that effort to inform the American Workforce of the rights they do have. One other element of National Employee freedom week, we end up talking about what limitations still remain on employees. And this panel is talking about one significant limitation, one significant burden that remains on Public Employees and lawsuits that are challenging that because it infringes on the rights of Public Employees. My goal for the panel is that youll be more familiar with that abbud precident. I want you to be familiar with that. As well as when you hear these case names again in two months or six months or 12 months, youll know the import of that case, why its being discussed in the news at that stage and what could happen if its victorious. So before handing it over to the first panelist, i want to give a little bit more context to how we got to the stage of needing these lawsuits, its going to be surprisingly brief. The labor history in america is troublesome and fascinating and its certainly worth being familiar with, but im going to speed through a few points that will take us up to when these lawsuits were deemed necessary and started to proceed. In 1945, franklin roosevelt, with violence between Union Supporters and opponents, pressure had National Labor relations act of 1935. Controlling essentially the workplace, they had control over who would where working there, they could collectively bargain, they could strike, they could organize. It was very union friendly. Not surprisingly, the result eof that legislation, the unions grew in membership and in power. Also not surprisingly, within about 12 years, popular opposition to union power had grown so much that democrats and republicans together overrode a veto by president truman to take away some of the powers that were given to union. There were very unpopular strikes that were so significant that the democrats in congress along with republicans ignored the wishes of the president s veto and passed the taft hartley act. What taft hartley did closed the office that had control over the union workforce. And became the agency workshop. The agency fee, and other coverage of these issues may call it forced dues, compulsory dues, but essentially nonmembers in unionized work force can be forced to pay even if theyre not in the union. The first 1935 law gave an out for religious objectors, but at this stage it was essentially if the union was taking over the workplace, everyone was paying for it whether they liked it or not. That was private workplaces. By the 1960s, the collective workforce act extended to government workers. The state of the wisconsin extended it to federal workers there. Richard nixon expand that in 69 and very quickly public unions started to outpace the growth of private unions. The percentage of Union Members in Public Employment was greater than that in private employment. It used to be about a third of private workers were unionized and now its actually about a third public workplaces. Many teachers today were not at that school when it first welcomed the union and they really have never had a chance to decide whether they want to keep that union, theres no recertification vote, it really has always been there. You were there 28 years ago, was the union there . It was voted in when i was a child. Adding these unionized workplaces and maintaining the structure of agency. So in the late 1960s, early 1970s, some public schoolteachers in michigan where they had an Agency Shop Law and they were forced to pay dues even though they didnt want to belong to the union, challenged it in court saying this is an infringement on our First Amendment rights. This is forcing us to pay for political speech, and we feel that we shouldnt have to do that. That became the abud supreme the Abood Supreme Court case that were going to be talking about. Thats essentially the framework that were under today. Its been refined some, there was a case in 1986 called hudson and it addressed some transparency issues, but the basic issue was that forced union dues to people who did not want to belong to the union, it was about 70 or 80 . In 2014, harris b. Quinn had started to challenge the frame work that the abud, that abood, the 40yearold press department now, that this was not new speech. One collective bargaining is political speech and you cannot force an employee to fund that. There was a reason why that didnt proceed. But then there was another challenge in 2016, fredericks v cta, so im going to turn it over to Rebecca Fredericks to continue our story. Good afternoon, everyone. In 1987, i was a bright eyed and bushy tailed student teacher, and an outstanding Master Teacher taught me everything i have ever known, but next door, there was a teacher who i had come to call the witch. Every day she would grab young children, by the arms, she would get in their faces and scream at them. She towered over them. I was 22 i was terrified. They were 6 years old, first graders, i cant imagine what they were feeling, but she abused them like this every single day. And this was just outside, i dont know what went on when the door was closed. I went to my Master Teacher, and i said im learning how to report child abuse and i think i see some next door and its the teacher, and my Master Teacher sat me down and said today, rebecca is the day you learn about forced unions and teacher tenure. Teacher tenure works together with collectively bargained with grievance procedures and quite effectively ties the hands of administrators so people like the witch are protected and the vulnerable students that were in her class were abused. I didnt want to put the protection of an abusive what i call witch, put her job security above the safety of small children. But i soon found out i didnt have a choice. I didnt have to join the union and pay their dues, but i had to sip the unions representation and pay their fees. They use a lot of little tricky language, so you have to Pay Attention to what it is theyre forcing you to do. Some of their tricky language is, the unions tell the american people, rebecca can opt out. Teachers dont like it they can opt out. Really . Let me tell you about opting out. First of all they dont tell you how to do it. When i went to my teacher rep and asked how to opt out. She said thats easy, just check the box. This is what i found out about that, when you check the box, you have just asked the union to give you a rebate of the 20 year you didnt know you were donating to the unions Political Action committee. So you get back that 20 bucks, but you are still a full union member paying for all politics having to do with the union. I thought that was deceptive. So i started learning about how to opt out. When you opt out, you become something called an agency fee payer. This is how it works, as an agency fee payer, you pay 100 of the collective bargaining fees, but you have no voice in collective bargaining, im not even invited to the meetings. You have no vote in collective bargaining, so even though youre paying for all of it, you dont even get to vote on what theyre deciding and to make sure that they punish you for having an independent mind, they take away your professional Liability Insurance, making you vulnerability in front if a class room, which is why we need aae. Also youre not allowed to purchase Disability Insurance from your employer. I was on bedrest for six months, and i was not able to collect disability disability. My husband just happens to be an agency fee payer, nonmember in a university in california, his agency fees are 1,200 a year. No vote, no voice. That seems pretty unconstitutional to me. So i even had a call from a san diego teacher the other day, he said even though we have had all these challenges from the Teachers Union, they raised or raised our dues. You to go back to the witch, i want you to imagine that your child is in the witchs child, class, orhe witchs how about your grandchild, your grand child is in the witchs class. Thanks to the collective bargaining procedures, your child is in danger, you as a parent have no voice in the School District. And guess what, the teacher next door, the one reporting the abuse, im silenced by a union im forced to fund. So i know what youre thinking ill just move my child. Ill take my child to a private school. What if you were poor, what if you were low or middle income, what if youre like me, i was a single parent for seven years. I know, School Choice, ill take my child to the Charter School down the road. Did you know that the Teachers Union fund a multimillion dollar battle against School Choice using the money i pay fight School Choice . I think thats unconstitutional. Do Teachers Want this union . Only the Teachers Union has a voice. But teachers dont have a voice. Teachers unions, i guess a lot of teachers would like it if the union were accountable to us. But the unions get our money no matter what they do. So do you think they listen to us . No. They speak on behalf of the union leadership, not on behalf of teachers like myself who want to protect the children from the witch. So let me just tell you one quick story. I decided to become a full member at one point, because remember, i had no voice, paying those fees. So i became a full member and i served for three years as a union rep and a leader on my local Union Executive board. I was a secretary. During that time, we had a downturn in our economy. And several district teachers, we were told, were going to be laid off. By the way, they were laid off for the crime of being new. Because based on the Teacher Union rules, the last in, first we lay people off based on last in, first out. You have tenure, you keep your job. While someone whos working really hard, loving on the children lets just say the witch, the witch would keep her job, but some really hard working loving teacher who just happened to have less seniority would be booted out. I think thats wrong. I fought it and i said, look, i talked to the teachers on my campus, and we agreed we would take a pay cut, to save the jobs of these teachers who are about to lose their jobs, its a low income district, lets keep the class sizes small, thats what the union says is good, low class sizes, i went to the union, i said look, teachers on my campus, we want to safe the save the jobs of these teachers, we want to do whats right for our kids. They said the teachers will never do it. I said do you realize that im speaking on behalf of the teachers . We want to do it. Lets have a survey. They said rebecca, dont worry about those teachers who are going to lose their jobs, the union is going to take care of them. Were going to offer them a seminar on how to get unemployment benefits. And my jaw dropped. Those teachers were paying 1,000 a year for representation, and every within every last one was represented right out of a job. And every one of those students and their parents lost Great Teachers. I have talked to a lot of teachers across the country and over 90 of the teachers i have spoken to, they like the local representation of their friends, you know, their teacher colleagues, you know the ones that wanted to take the pay cut to save their jobs, they like that representation, but they resent the state union and the National Union and they resent all the politics, they resent the one sided policies that the unions are passing behind our backs. We dont know what theyre doing most of the time. They just take our money and run. Lets say my husbands 1,200 a year, did you know that only 20 stays in the local union. 50 goes to the state union, 30 goes to the National Union. Thats a lot of money. And teachers represent that. Teachers resent that. They have no problem with the local, but they have a real problem with that state and national. So in 2012, i realized i cant make my voice be heard in this union union, my School District was terrified of the union. So i started writing editorials in the local newspaper. All i wanted to do was just educate the community, and educate my fellow educators on, look, we dont have to put up with this, we have to stand up for whats right for the children, thats why were there, right . Were there for the children, so i started writing these editorials. And thank god, within six months, i had this opportunity to bring a lawsuit, a National Lawsuit and i had the blessing of being the lead plaintiff so fredericks versus the California Teachers Association became our case. And we had one just very simple argument. The teachers should be able to decide for ourselves without fear or coercion whether or not to join or fund a union. That seems pretty fair to me. But do you know that the unions took that message and they twisted it. And they fought mercilessly. Heres what they did to my fellow plaintiffs and me. They shunned us, they labelled us pawns of the wealthy 1 . As if we were too stupid to think for ourselves. They told teachers, they told my friends that we were trying to ruin the pensions of teachers across the country, i have lost friends over that because they believe the lies. They told everyone we were union busters, even though we were trying to make our local union stronger. They told everyone we were free riders, even though they were the ones free riding off of us. And they terrified teachers across the country and a lot of those terrified teachers came to me in dark closets or they would send me a private email, and they would say thank you, rebecca, for speaking for us. Do you know that Kamala Harris intervened on the unions and the in favor of the unions and the Obama Administration got involved in the case in favor of the unions . These are politicians who say hey, were for the little guy. I want to tell you something, im the little guy, and all of my teacher colleagues and all my fellow plaintiffs, were the little guy. And those little kids being abused by the witch, theyre the little guy. And these politicians stood in solidarity with powerful special interest unions against the little guy. Against those little 6yearold guys. I find that repugnant, to be honest. On january 16, we went to the United States Supreme Court, in 2016, and we argued on behalf of teachers and on behalf of the safety of children and on behalf of the voice of parents and you know what . Everyone knew that we won the arguments that day, even the union knew we won. And you know what else . Our opponents during arguments conceded to our argument that all collective bargaining in the Public Sector is political. They admitted that. So we knew, things went great. But do you know what else . You know. One month later, Justice Scalia died. Ah. We ended up with a 44 decision, but we asked for a rehearing, once there would be nine justices back on the court, and on my birthday, we were rejected. So we lost on my birthday. But i havent lost hope, even though we lost on my birthday. Maybe thats a sign, we lost on my birthday so i should have hope. Heres why i have hope. Theres more cases coming, youre about to hear about the janice case thats petitioning the court now. And youre going to hear about the yan case. My job is, im out educating teachers, im educating legislators, people like you, policymakers, im educating parents, im trying to help them understand, we dont have to put up with this, this is america, and we can be free. Were starting to be heartd, but we cant do it alone. So i have a call to action today, we need your help. Could you please adopt a teacher . Everybody knows a teacher, theres a teacher in your church or synagogue, theres a teacher in your family, i bet you. Just adopt at least one and do this, start educating that teacher on the truth. The truth that we can certify these unions. The truth that they dont need to be terrifyied always time. And then empathize with them, because they have been beat up. Dont get mad if they are afraid. Empathize, they are bullied on a culture of fear that unions created on our campuses. Empathize with them. And then empower them. Empower them to learn more. To listen to this little talk or to read about our cases. Heres why we need your help. And this will be my last thought. When teachers are freed from forced unionism, little kids can be safe again in the classroom, and they can learn again. When teachers are freed from forced unionism, parents can have a voice again, grandparents too. When teachers are freed from forced unionism, Great Teachers can thrive again, and when teachers are freed from forced unionism, americas schools can be skpelexcellent again, wouldnt that be great . Can be excellent again. Wouldnt that be great . So adopt a teacher with me today. Thank you for listening. Well, Rebecca Fredericks is a hard speaker to follow, especially when youre going to talk about the mundane details about it all. I will do my best. As mentioned earlier, about 40 years ago the u. S. Supreme court , said governments can force their employees to pay union fees as a condition of their employment. The court said you cant make employees pay for Certain Union political activities, like support for electoral campaigns and things like that, but you can make them by for their share of the unions cost of bargaining on their behalf. And the Supreme Court thought this struck a good balance under the First Amendment because supposedly no one would be forced to pay for union politics, but you would prevent workers from what they call free riding off the unions efforts on their behalf. So ever since then, we have had this scheme where in states that dont have right to work laws, Government Employees, millions of Government Employees have been forced to pay money out of every paycheck to a union, either full union dues, or what they call agency fees which are typically slightly less than full union dues. And there are problems with this scheme and problems with the abud decisions reasoning. One problem is that the scheme that the Supreme Court worked out does not in fact protect workers from paying for union politics. One reason why is because everything a Public Sector union does is political. When a Public Sector union bargains with the government, it tells the government what it should pay employees, how it should run programs. And thats political speech. If you and i talked to the government about those things, we call it lobbying and everybody agrees thats quintessential government speech. So if an employee is forced to pay any amount of money to a union at all, theyre being forced to pay for political speech, and thats something the First Amendment virtually never allows. Eat another problem with the Supreme Courts reasoning in abud is that you can be forced to pay money to an organization to stop them from free riding on their efforts. In fact not every worker , benefits from a unions bargaining. Some workers think they could do better if they could bargain for themselves. They dont want the unions services, they would like to bargain on their own behalf and be judged and compensated based on their individual merit rather than being lumped in with all other Government Employees. So when the union bargains on their behalf in their place, they dont consider that to be a benefit, they consider that to be a harm. Another problem with the whole free rider idea, is that even if you accept the idea that unions get every employee more compensation than they otherwise would receive, that doesnt actually necessarily mean that every worker benefits from the unions efforts. As we have seen from what rebecca said, there may be situations where particular employees dont want more compensation, they would rather get less compensation and have more people employed because they think thats fair. Or our client, he works for the state of illinois as a Child Support specialist and he thinks that the union hes forced to support is partly responsible for the fiscal and Economic Disaster that is the state of illinois. He thinks that illinois is in the bad shape that its in because of unreasonable demands that his union has made over the years. And he thinks it would be wrong to ask taxpayers to pay significantly more for employee salaries when the states in the bad shape that its in and people in the private sector are hurting. The unions argument assumes everyone is only concerned with their own narrow selfinterest. Thats not true. I think people care not only about themselves, but their neighbors, their communities, their states economy, so they dont support more for themselves if it means imposing an unfair burden on other people. So when those people are forced to fund advocacy theyre forced they disagree with theyre , not free riders, theyre forced riders. Court has recognized these problems and others with the abud decision and overturn it signals, at least the justice system, signaled that they might be willing to reconsider the abud decision and overturn it if the right case came along. Which thought that would hatch happen with rebeccas case, but as she said that fell through when Justice Scalia unfortunately died after oral fortunately, our case was already in the pipeline. Started when the governor of illinois issued an executive order directing state officials not to take union fees from anyone who wasnt already a union member. He said that would violate their First Amendment rights. At the same time, he filed a federal lawsuit asking the federal courts to declare that the First Amendment requires them to do this. The unions and the illinois attorney general responded to this by saying the governor didnt actually have standing to bring this lawsuit, because he was never forced to pay union fees, so he has nothing in it personally. When we saw that, we at the Liberty Center together with attorneys moved to intervene in that case on behalf of several Illinois State employees who had been forced to play pay thousands to a union against their will over the course of their career. The court then let the case go forward without the governor but with our plaintiff. One plaintiff,to a Child Support specialist, who has been heroic and brave in standing up to one of the most powerful Political Forces in the state of illinois. Everything was very fortunate for us, because we were in a position to petition the Supreme Court take our case in june, which was shortly after the Supreme Court got a new ninth justice with neil gorsuch. Now the courts in a position to take this issue up again. And were hopeful that it will grant our petition as soon as it comes back for its new term in october. Of course you cant predict what the Supreme Court will do, but you would think, if they wanted to resolve this issue in Rebecca Fredericks case, they would still want to do it now. And if the court will enter a favorable decision in june, which will mean by this time next year, every government worker in the country, every level of government will be free to choose for themselves whether they want to give any of their money to a union. That will be an incredible victory for the individual if that happens, but that wont be the end of the story, because there will be other things that have to be done to ensure that governments and unions respect employees rights. And with that, i will hand these hence it over to terrence pell. Well, thank you, colin, for organizing this and thank you to the Heritage Foundation for hosting this. Jacob talked to you about a case that he hopes to get to the Supreme Court this term that asks the court to end compulsory dues nationwide in the 22 states that now have them. If he is successful in getting the court to take this case, we expect that by this time next year, compulsory dues will be a thing of the past. The court will have ruled that it is unconstitutional to make employees like rebecca Union Agency Fees to support the union. The case im going to talk about. S the next logical step it is a necessary next step in making the choice to support unions truly voluntary. It is necessary because the unions are not likely to give individuals the right to decide whether they want to join the union or not. We know unions are determined to keep their members. Through agency fees, they get millions of dollars each year in revenue, that they dont have to do anything, it just shows at their doorstep, so it would not be unreasonable for them to keep as many members as they can and to interpret whatever the decision the Supreme Court releases this year and as narrow a way as possible that benefits the union the most. So what are the unions likely to do . Theyll say, all right, compulsory dues are a thing of the past, but most of our existing members have already elected to join the union and have voluntarily decided to pay these dues so were going to let assumed they want to continue to pay until they tell us otherwise, until they leave, or opt out of paying further dues for the union. You might think its an easy thing for someone to leave the union, but that isnt so. The union can impose rules about when you can leave and what you have to do to leave. You can say you can only opt out of Union Membership once a year during a narrow twoweek period. They can put that twoweek period during the start of school year when teachers are trying to get organized for the school year. It can hide the rules for the deadlines and timelines of various procedures, and hide them somewhere on a website that teachers have to go looking for. Thingheres another unions can do, which is even more troublesome. Unions can say its not enough to leave unions once. We will assume every year that you want to be a member unless you tell us all over again that you want to opt out of union according to the same complicated rules you had to use the first time. How likely is it the union will put all these barriers and impediments on peoples ability to leave the union . Its very likely. E back up became an agency fee payer, she had to file a letter with the union and follow up with a refund request for dues that she paid, she has to make that refund request every year within a narrow time period, that generally falls in the beginning of the school year. So theres no reason to think that these unions wont impose these kinds of concernditions on employee who is decide they want to leave the union. Were asking the court to strike down these opt out rules and replace them with an opt in system, where our case asks the court to rule that these kinds of impediments amount to an a burden on free speech rights of individual employees. If jason wins his case, the court will have said that everybody has a First Amendment right to decide for themselves whether to join the union. In that case, the union can attach all sorts of conditions to the ability of employees to exercise that right. Were asking the court to strike down those conditions. Just to be clear here, the right that we are talking about and the right that our case defense is the right to remain silent, the right for teachers to decide on their own whether they want to join the union, and not have to go through the procedure of deciding not to join the union. This kind of right to remain silent, to stay out of the public discussion is in some , ways the opposite of the normal free speech right that most people think they have. Everybody understands that they have a right to speak out without the government sensoring them, but not many understand that part of that right is the right to not speak out, the right to remain silent, the right to decide for yourself when and how to participate in public discussions. So in our case, in yon btca, were fighting for the right of teachers to not have to join various discussions the union would like to have and instead opt out of all of those discussions, not to participate in any of them. Were asking for the right of teachers to remain silent, to not be a participant in these public debates. Well, the right to choose for ones self under what circumstances to participate in public discussion runs current to everyones general understanding of why free speech is valuable. Most people think free speech is justified because it leads to a discussion and an open discussion and a marketplace of ideas which allows us to see which claims are true and which claims are false. But a right not to speak doesnt really contribute to the marketplace of ideas. It allows people who might have very important points of view to make to just sit back and remain silent. So thats why this view or this right is not particularly well understood, but the truth is like many other rights in the constitution, the First Amendment is not so much designed to achieve a perfect marketplace of ideas but to prevent an abuse, specifically designed to prevent the government from coercing speech. So that means that individuals, not the government, get to decide not just what to say but whether they want to say anything at all. Its not up to the government or the unions to decide that we have to have a perfect marketplace of ideas by requiring everybody to pay to participate in a large public discussion managed by the union. Its ok under the constitution for an individual to say i dont want to participate in that conversation one way or the other. So in the context of the union dues case, the right not to speak means that nobody should be a member of a union unless they affirmatively decide to join. Theyre free to refrain from taking a position one way or the other on the myriad of issues that the union wants to talk about. Were representing six teachers in california and the association of american educators who have a variety of views about unions. Some of our clients in this case think that unionism is generally a good thing. They just dont happen to like the California Teachers Association and the nea. They think those unions do a bad job. Others of these clients dont like to be part of a union at all. They disagree with the idea of unions, they disagree with the fact these unions have become highly political organizations and they want nothing to do with it. What joins all these plaintiffs together is they think each of them as individuals should have the right to decide whether to participate in the union in the first place. Theyre saying that individuals have a constitutionally protected right to not speak and that they shouldnt have to run around and comply with various opt out rules in order to exercise that right. Instead, the burden ought to be on the union to run around and encourage individuals to join the union on their own terms when and if they want. So if the Court Decides in a genus that unions may not charge agency fees, it will still be important to settle the conditions under which employees can exercise that right. They can exercise the choice to join or not join union on their own terms. Our case asks the court to put that choice firmly in the hands of individuals by respecting their right not to have to make a choice, to respect their right to remain completely silent on the issues that the union wants to talk about. So you might want to think about our litigation, the litigation of all, you know, jasons firm and my firm, as a kind of chess game. At each stage, its necessary to kind of think forward to what the next step, you know, down the road is going to be. So if jason wins his case, then the next step is going to be trying to satisfy the conditions that are necessary to make the choice to join the union a truly free and not coerced in any sense of the word. Thank you. Well, i want to thank the speakers for being timeconscious. We have, i think, five minutes here for some questions. John will come around. Is the microphone working . We have a couple of them. Raise your hand if you want to ask a question, and if the mike mic comes to you, please state your name and any affiliations for the people watching online and listening on cspan can hear. We have questions . Yes, thank you. Mel, accuracy in academia. I have a really mundane one. Can you lay out exactly how many members you got and what benefits they exactly get . Sure, we have over 20,000 members throughout the country. And the reason that the teachers join the association of american educators is they get a 2 million Liability Insurance policy along with Employment Rights covered. They get to work with an attorney when there is a job action. That is in lieu of what people would usually get from the union, but a significant difference is that coverage is actually guaranteed as a part of the Liability Insurance benefit. Whereas with the union, despite paying them for some years, theres no guarantee to provide you with that protection. Thats the most significant benefit. Theres other traditional professional Association Benefits and more information on aeteachers. Org. Next question down here. Hi. My name is mark. I work in the senate. I wanted to ask if the sort of rights and freedoms that would be won by these lawsuits would go beyond the whats protected under right to work laws in the 28 states or however many there are that currently have them in effect. I think what if the court agrees and strikes down compulsory dues, essentially, it makes the entire country a right to work country. So the rules in particular states may vary and there are going to be fights afterwards. In our case, for example, but the general point is that the entire country will become right to work with a stroke of a pen. Hi. Im kevin with the daily signal here at heritage. The Harris V Quinn decision, the unions have made every effort to undermine that ruling, and there the bigbig tech that th takeaway is that there are people who are paying dues who dont have to pay dues. If we get the decision, thats a beginning and not an end because the unions will work with allies in government to gut that ruling. Rebecca, i think you know your partners in Washington State have been draining the membership roles by educating people about their rights. I hope we dont sit back passively if we win legally. I would like to address that quickly. Thats why precisely why i asked you to adopt a teacher. Because even if the janice case wins and the yon case wins and the teachers have the right to opt in rather than opt out, they will be bullied for taking that stance. If you have an independent mind, the unions supposedly sticks up for womens rights and all that stuff, but they punish me constantly for having an independent mind. These folks will be bullied. Theyll be shunned. Theyll be isolated. Theres a lot of ignorance where people cant figure out how to do it. So its just the beginning. We have to keep on fighting. We cant relax once these cases are successful. Thanks, kevin. I think this will be the last question. We have one minute. Joel, im an attorney here in washington. You just said that if you won the case, you would have an effect on the national right to work law. This decision, no matter how favorable, wouldnt affect private employers, would it . Thats true. This is limited to Public Employees. Ok. The majority of unions of unionized americans. All right, i want to thank you all for showing up and for watching online and on cable. And i want to thank the panel for being here. Thank you very much. [applause] we have sandwiches outside. They lost one of the justices so there werent enough votes to decide it in her favor or to decide it at all. And there werent enough votes to rehear it. [inaudible] yeah, they will look amongst themselves and each side will decide what the votes are likely to be, and on that basis, decide whether to take it or not. Yeah. I dont see why it would change. You think they would have finished what they started. Thank you. [inaudible] yes. I will provide that to you. Definitely. Hi. Great to see you. Announcer this