If Teachers Lose Their Supreme Court Case: Another Solution?

It appears likely that teachers will lose their important (and pending) Supreme Court case on enforcing agency fees (also called mandatory dues). This is based on the vote in an analogous case, Harris v. Quinn (5-4 vote). What then? Our nation’s collective bargaining laws are founded on the principle of exclusive representation. So, if a teacher’s union represents 100 teachers in a given district, that organization must represent all 100 teachers, whether they pay dues or not. Obviously, not all 100 teachers will have the same interests—some will value retirement issues, others will focus on the pay scale, others will focus on teacher evaluations, and so on. Some teachers will not want any representation—but under our labor laws, they are stuck, as long as 51 teachers support their union. Some European nations have minority representation. If 30 out of 100 teachers favor the Sunshine Union, the employer must bargain with the Sunshine Union. If another 25 teachers favor the Flower Union, the employer must bargain with the Flower Union. If the remaining 45 teachers want no union, the employer has a free hand to deal with those individuals as the employer sees fit. The main disadvantage of the system is that is leads to unequal employment conditions for a group of employees with a common employer. But the main advantage is that it allows for individual choice—precisely what Ms. Friedrichs is seeking in her lawsuit to be free from union dues. Experience shows that the most effective union wins the greatest support from employees, acting as a brake on having too many unions.... But to the extent that the real agenda with this lawsuit is to do away with teacher unions, that idea is fitting for totalitarian societies where employees have few if any rights-- an "un-American" idea.