PUSD part of significant lawsuit
Local couple included in mandatory union dues suit
A Porterville couple, both teachers in the Porterville Unified School District, are among eight California teachers who filed a federal lawsuit earlier this month challenging mandatory union membership and the mandatory deduction of dues in public schools.
Because two teachers in the district are among the plaintiffs, Porterville Unified School District and Superintendent Ken Gibbs are listed as one of the six defendants.
The suit is basically the same one which ended up in the Supreme Court last year. Because of Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, the high court deadlocked 4-4 in the case which had been denied by the lower court of appeals.
Robert and Stacy Vehrs are the two local teachers listed among the plaintiffs. They, and the six other plaintiffs, are challenging the closed shop rule which requires teachers to pay dues to the union even if they don’t want to belong to a union.
Gibbs said he had no idea his name would appear on the cover of the lawsuit until the several thousand page document was delivered to him last week. The new suit was filed on Feb. 6 in federal court in Los Angeles.
“We are agents in that we are responsible for payroll deductions,” said Gibbs.
The last case drew national attention because of the ramifications for unions. The California Teachers Association is one of the most powerful unions in the United States and it fought — and will fight — the lawsuit vigorously. It is already mobilizing its forces now and may challenge President Donald Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court.
The president nominated Neil M. Gorsuch, considered a conservative who may side with the plaintiffs, although reports are there is nothing in his background to indicate which way he might vote. The case may reach the high court this fall.
Gibbs said the district is really a part of the suit in name only, although it will cost the district some money because it will need to have its attorneys involved to a certain extent.
He, nor the district, has an opinion on the suit.
“The schools are not the focus of this. It’s a matter of cooperating and getting information to those who ask,” he said. “It shouldn’t be a huge cost to the district,” he added.
The Center for Individual Rights filed the lawsuit [Yohn v. CTA] against the state of California and the California Teachers Association on behalf of the eight California public school teachers and the Association of American Educators. The teachers are challenging California’s “agency shop” law, which violates the First Amendment by forcing them to pay annual fees to the union — even if they are not a member, said the group.
Stacy Vehrs has worked for PUSD for 24 years. Her husband, Robert, has 27 years with the district.
In the lawsuit, it states neither has ever been a member of the union that is recognized as the exclusive representative in the district, the Porterville Educators Association, which is listed as one of the defendants as well. Stacy Vehrs said their dues amount to about $1,200 a year each.
“We think it is unacceptable that any of our money is diverted to an entity that we have chosen not to join and with which we find ourselves diametrically opposed on most political and policy topics. After all these years we decided that we must be part of the group that stands up to big powerful unions in our state by allowing people the option of either joining, or refraining from joining a union,” said Stacy Vehrs through attorneys for the plaintiffs.
She added there are other teachers who feel the same way.
“I have talked to several of my colleagues about the fact that the union uses our money to support people, policies and political initiatives that we do not agree with. However, union representatives often bully us and tell us how we are ‘leeches’ who are willing to take the perks of collective bargaining while not paying our ‘fair share.’ Most of my colleagues join the union because they don’t realize that they have options and because they don’t want to be treated like pariahs,” she added.
The Vehrs said they would refuse to pay the union dues if they had a choice.
Jacob F. Rukeyser, legal director for the California Teachers Association, said the Association is ready for the fight.
“We see this as yet another attack on the ability of educators to band together,” he said, adding the suit would have ramifications on other organized labor groups as well.
“This is an attack on public sector unions and unions in general,” he said.
Rukeyser pointed out that teachers are not required to join the union and they only have to pay the portion of the dues which pay for bargaining on their behalf. He said only about 1 of 10 teachers opt out of paying the full dues.
“While no one is required to become a member of the union, they do benefit from the hard work the union does,” he said. Under collective bargaining, the union negotiates on behalf of all teachers.
Gibbs said the district, per law, deducts the union dues. Employees do have an option to have a percentage of the monthly due — approximately $100 — go to a charity per state law. That breakdown is roughly 30 percent. The remainder does go to the Union which states that is what it uses to represent the employees in bargaining wages and benefits.
According to the Center for Individual Rights, California is one of 23 states which forces teachers and other public employees — even those who have expressly opted out of union membership — to pay union fees every year.
“The unions in turn use these ‘agency fees’ to finance their collective bargaining agenda. In the public sector, collective bargaining has profound implications on a host of controversial issues that are central to education policy. By bargaining with the government, unions can effectively advance their policy on issues such as school choice, class sizes, tenure, and allocation of tax dollars,” states the Center.
“The eight teacher plaintiffs in Yohn v. CTA have political and moral objections to many of the policies on which unions spend their money. And they are not alone. A poll conducted by Education Next and the Harvard Kennedy School revealed that many teachers disagree with their union on some or all of the issues that unions typically negotiate on: 34 percent disagree with their union over tenure; 41 percent disagree with their union over charter schools; and finally, 50 percent of public school teachers believe that compelled union dues are wrong and unconstitutional,” said the Center.
In 2016, CIR represented Rebecca Friedrichs and other teachers in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association — a case raising the same issue. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Friedrichs on Jan. 11, 2016. However, after the untimely death of Justice Scalia, the Court issued an equally divided, non-binding opinion.
Rukeyser pointed out that case took nearly three years before it reached the Supreme Court. He said after the District Court trial, if it is appealed, it would go to the Ninth District Court of Appeal and then, if again appealed, would go on to the Supreme Court.
“Certainly, the plaintiffs want to get to the Supreme Court,” he said.
By law, a tie vote by the Supreme Court does not settle a legal question; it simply leaves the lower court opinion in place and reserves the legal question for a future case, stated the Center.