You could, but that would be exactly what the people behind this court case want. They want to weaken the ability of educators and other workers to come together in unions to negotiate on behalf of their members and, in our case, to stand up for students and for public education. It’s part of a broader scheme to rig the system against working people.

No. You would get the benefits of the negotiated contract but have no say in the priorities like salary and benefits, school safety conditions, class sizes and all the other things in the contract. You’d also be ineligible for all the benefits that come with membership, including a $1 million-dollar personal liability policy, legal services, access to student-centered professional development, membership discounts on insurance, entertainment, and travel. Unfortunately, you’d also lose your voice in the union. You couldn’t vote in union elections and you wouldn’t even be able to vote on the contract.

We encourage you to maintain your membership. Our effectiveness bargaining fair and just salaries, benefits and working conditions is directly related to member support and the power we have in our collective voice. Increases in funding to public schools, ensuring that rights such as permanent status and due process are protected, and beneficial contractual improvements are direct results of the important work we have been able to accomplish because of a united CTA membership.

If you still decide you’d like to drop your union membership contact TALB for the required process.  Keep in mind that by not being a member you will not be eligible for standard disability insurance, legal representation regarding employment matters including layoffs, and much more.

The Janus case is an attempt to further rig the system against working people by challenging the constitutionality of fair share fees. These fees have been collected by public employee unions from non-members whom they are obligated to represent under the collective bargaining agreements they have negotiated. The plaintiffs argue that those fees violate their First Amendment free speech rights by compelling them to pay for political speech they disagree with. But the fact is, the current system does not violate anyone’s free speech rights because fair share payers only pay for costs related to bargaining their contract and representing them in any contract-related issue. Fair share contributions have been upheld by the United States Supreme Court for over 40 years as a sensible compromise that protects the rights of both individuals and unions.

Fair share fees, sometimes called “agency fees,” are collected from non-members by their unions for the representation they receive under the contract (salary, benefits, teaching conditions such as class size and safety provisions, etc.) as well as the representation they are entitled to for individual employment issues. Fee payers are NOT charged for union political activities, membership promotion, local scholarships and other programs not part of representation.

The National Right to Work Foundation and other anti-worker groups are backing the case. They are part of a network of extremists funded by corporate CEOs to use the U.S. legal system to rig the rules against everyday working people. Their goal with Janus is no secret: they want to use the U.S. Supreme Court to take away the freedom of working people to join in strong unions, because unions give workers a powerful voice in speaking up for themselves, their families and their communities. Unions have played a critical role in building and protecting the middle class in America. Janus is part of an $80 million campaign by anti-worker forces to “defund and defang” unions.

It’s not; it’s the same issue, brought this time by different plaintiffs against a different union. It is a “second bite at the apple” for the anti-worker forces who filed the earlier suit but were unsuccessful.

CTA prevailed two years ago when a 4-4 tied U.S. Supreme Court vote upheld the long-standing precedent. Now with Neil Gorsuch filling the late Justice Scalia’s seat (Scalia was widely predicted to side against the unions in Friedrichs, but he died suddenly and unexpectedly without voting), there is no danger of a tie with a full nine-member Court.

Possibly, but most CTA members recognize the value of their union membership and that the union is only as strong as the totality of its members.

TALB and CTA have already been planning and budgeting based on the potential of losing fair share. We are tightening our belt in some areas, reallocating resources in others. CTA has been around for 155 years, with fair share in most of chapters for only a fraction of that time. We have been the strongest, most effective voice for California students and educators in the years before agency fee, while it existed, and based on new levels of member engagement, we will continue to be as strong – even stronger – if fair share is struck down.

Yes. The union will still have the duty to represent non-members and those workers will still enjoy all of the benefits negotiated for them by their colleagues and union staff under the contract.