My client Rebecca Friedrichs has been teaching at various elementary schools for 28 years. Friedrichs is very displeased with the California Teachers Association, which is the sole and leading union in California (Brown). She is tired of being forced to support politically powerful unions that she disagrees with. I, Rebecca Friedrichs, and ten other believe that the California Teachers Association has violated Friedrichs and the other teacher’s first amendment right because having an agency shop limits freedom of speech and should not be upheld in law. In representing my client (Friedrichs and the other teachers in the California system), collectively we have many goals we aim to accomplish during this court hearing. First, we hope that the
…show more content…
Collective Bargaining works by the unions giving money to particular candidates that runs for office. After election, they go to the bargaining table and engage in unethical practices such as demanding salary increases and other tax payer expenses. First, Friedrichs and other teachers feel this is wrong. They disagree with two sides coming together and negotiating on taxpayer money while the taxpayer is not present. They think it is not fair to the citizens because such practices are shrouded in underhanded politics (Brown). Secondly, Friedrichs should have the right to negotiate her own contract. She should not be forced to pay an organization that goes against her views. The case Retail Clerks V. Lion Dry Good establishes the right of a non-union member to negotiate their own contract. Every year the union asks for more money and government officials give it to them in hopes of being re-elected and financed again by the same teachers unions …show more content…
An overwhelming 36% goes directly to political candidates, issues, or other political intensive activities (Where Do). According to the California Teachers Association website roughly 10% of dues go to collective bargaining (CTA Budget). Subsequently, the question arises why should non-union teachers’ pay nearly the same amount of union dues when only ten percent of what is paid is appropriated correctly on issues that the union should cover legally. In the past 20 years, shockingly nearly 200 million dollars have been spent by the California Teachers Association on issues directly involving politics
Collective Bargaining works by the unions giving money to particular candidates that runs for office. After election, they go to the bargaining table and engage in unethical practices such as demanding salary increases and other tax payer expenses. First, Friedrichs and other teachers feel this is wrong. They disagree with two sides coming together and negotiating on taxpayer money while the taxpayer is not present. They think it is not fair to the citizens because such practices are shrouded in underhanded politics (Brown). Secondly, Friedrichs should have the right to negotiate her own contract. She should not be forced to pay an organization that goes against her views. The case Retail Clerks V. Lion Dry Good establishes the right of a non-union member to negotiate their own contract. Every year the union asks for more money and government officials give it to them in hopes of being re-elected and financed again by the same teachers unions …show more content…
An overwhelming 36% goes directly to political candidates, issues, or other political intensive activities (Where Do). According to the California Teachers Association website roughly 10% of dues go to collective bargaining (CTA Budget). Subsequently, the question arises why should non-union teachers’ pay nearly the same amount of union dues when only ten percent of what is paid is appropriated correctly on issues that the union should cover legally. In the past 20 years, shockingly nearly 200 million dollars have been spent by the California Teachers Association on issues directly involving politics