Plaintiffs say the employee flexibility group’s political views are objectionable.
According to a recent filing, the Supreme Court may rule in favor of pro-Israel faculty who are compelled to pay for an anti-Israel coalition to represent them.
The Professional Staff Congress, according to the City University of New York Professors, is using their union dues to promote anti-Israel opinions, violating their First Amendment right.
According to National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation Vice President Patrick Semmens, the complaint challenges New York’s Taylor Law, which “authorizes union monopoly negotiations in the open business.” His team, along with the Fairness Center, have filed the charm.
According to Semmens, the legislation “forces the professors to acknowledge the “representation” of a union order” that they find revolting in contravention of the First Amendment’s freedom of association protections,” according to a press release.
According to Semmens, the forced wages “unconstitutionally forces the professors to connect with other academics whose philosophical beliefs and work interests diverge significantly from their own.”
The staff ‘ right chief said the law mandates that professors” to connect with union leaders and others who practically hate them and some of their most fundamental ideas.”
Lower courts have ruled in favor of the current union law, nevertheless.
But the Supreme Court has expressed” problems” with monopoly negotiations. According to a media release from the employee flexibility movement,” The Supreme Court restated its concerns most recently in the 2018 Foundation-won Janus v. AFSCME choice, with the bulk calling monopoly bargaining” a major impingement on participatory freedoms.”
In the , Janus decision, the Supreme Court ruled that public business people who choose not to work for a union cannot receive “agency costs” from their paychecks.
Additionally, according to Semmens,” a victory for the professors these could have a significant influence beyond New York and higher education.”
” Millions of people people – including K-12 public school teachers, officers, firefighters and people– are subjected to coalition forced’ picture’ under state and federal laws”, Semmens said.
Semmens responded to The Fix ‘ question about how educational unions like PSC should handle delicate political issues among their people, saying that membership should be entirely voluntary.
According to Semmens, “union managers should choose to represent only their own deliberate members,” and doing so will ensure that only those workers who have voluntarily endorsed themselves with the union are speaking and bargaining.
Union claims that the issue is intended to “eliminate unions,” and that its legal case is powerful.
The Professional Staff Congress disagrees, claiming that the problem was “meritless” and “brought by university” who are not PSC people and who are funded by the anti-union National Right to Work Legal Foundation in another attempt to end organizations.
According to director Francis Clark, The Fix received a message from the PSC that “union picture gives the workers ‘ power collective and gives them the combined strength to get better pay and working conditions.”
According to Clark, “SCOTUS has declined to hear such cases 12 times since 2014, and Appeals courts have repeatedly ruled that public-sector unions are not in violation of the]F ] irst]A ] mendment because they act as the exclusive bargaining agent for all employees in a bargaining unit,””.
The National Right to Work Foundation “is leveraging” the deeply held beliefs and suffering that some PSC people experience regarding Israel and Palestine, and” the same tried legal arguments,” Clark claimed, to “undermine union picture.”
Further insights from a professor of labor and employment relations at Pennsylvania State University were provided via email to The Fix.
According to Professor Paul Clark,” the system of union-management relations in the United States operates on the principle that workers have the right to choose who they want to represent by a union.”
The union is obligated to represent the entire group, not just those who supported it, according to Clark.
Clark has researched and” worked with unions in Pennsylvania”” for over 40 years, “according to his biography.
Regardless of who or what their personal views are about the union, union-negotiated pay increases and benefits are ensured by this “exclusive representation” by the group.
Additionally, Professor Clark explained to The Fix that” this principle has been instituted by both Congress and the courts” to prevent the chaos that would result if only those who voted for the union were represented and others who bargained individually. This circumstance would cause contradictions and difficulties for both employers and employees.
” Just as unions can be voted in by a majority, they can also be voted out by a majority. If the majority fails to vote out a union, they remain under union representation. In essence, the rule is that the majority’s decision prevails.”
MORE: More than 1, 000 scholars sign petition against AAUP for academic boycotts
IMAGE: Professional Staff Congress CUNY/Facebook
Follow The College Fix on Twitter and Like us on Facebook.
