New rule on personal cellphones enrages Minnesota faculty unions

By Maura Lerner Star Tribune 

MARCH 30, 2016

Move will let personal phones be inspected if used for work; unions raise privacy alarm. 

Two faculty unions are up in arms over a new rule that would allow Minnesota’s state colleges and universities to inspect employee-owned cellphones and mobile devices if they’re used for work.

The unions say the rule, which is set to take effect on Friday, would violate the privacy of thousands of faculty members, many of whom use their own cellphones and computers to do their jobs.

“[It’s] a free pass to go on a fishing expedition,” said Kevin Lindstrom, president of the Minnesota State College Faculty.

But college officials say they have an obligation under state law to protect any “government data” that may be on such devices, and that as public employees, faculty members could be disciplined if they refuse to comply.

“The expectations of employees haven’t changed,” said Doug Anderson, a spokesman for the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system (MnSCU). “All that’s really changed is the language that we’re using to inform employees of what those obligations are.”

Faculty leaders say they’ve been fighting to stop the new rule since it was first proposed in December. It was approved, over their vehement objections, by Chancellor Steven Rosenstone on March 16.

For the first time, the rule spells out that MnSCU employees “may be required” to hand over their personal cellphones or mobile devices for a variety of reasons, from security concerns to misconduct investigations.

It also states that the employer may inspect, copy or delete any work-related information, such as text messages, voice mail and e-mails, if necessary for a “legitimate business purpose.”

“When this language came out, our antennae flew to the ceiling,” said Jim Grabowska, president of the Inter Faculty Organization, which represents faculty at the seven state universities.

He noted that members are still reeling from the 2012 investigation of Todd Hoffner, a football coach at Minnesota State University Mankato who faced criminal charges and lost his job after university officials discovered naked videos of his young children on a university-owned cellphone. Ultimately, the criminal charges were dropped and he got his job back after a two-year battle to clear his name.

“Hoffner blew up because all of a sudden private data became public,” said Grabowska. After that, he said, many faculty members “stopped using state-owned devices and went to their personal devices because, in part, of the chilling effect.”

That’s one of the ironies of the new rule, said Patrice Arseneault, a lawyer for the faculty union. “We thought the personal phones were perfectly safe.”

The union sent out an alert to its members, arguing that the new rule crossed the line. As one faculty member wrote in an e-mail, “No way I’m handing my computer over to anybody — without a court fight.”

Officials, however, insist that the rules are designed to ensure that the data are protected properly, as required by the state’s Data Practices Act.

“We’re not interested in rooting around on cellphones looking for employees’ personal data,” said Anderson, the MnSCU spokesman.

He notes that the new language largely mirrors a 2014 state policy that regulates the use of personal cellphones and mobile devices for state business.

“Our procedure really leaves it up to the employee as to whether or not they use their personal cellphone or their personal laptop,” said Anderson. If they do, they have to follow the rules. “We think this is pretty consistent with what you find with other state agencies.”

Christopher Buse, an assistant commissioner and chief security officer for the state’s IT services, said that Minnesota typically discourages state employees from using their own cellphones for official business. “It leans toward keeping state data on state devices as a first choice,” he said. But employees who choose to use their own must get permission, he said, and could be required to submit the devices for inspection. So far, he’s not aware of any situations where that’s happened.

But faculty leaders argue that many of their members, especially adjunct instructors, have no choice but to use their own phones and computers to interact with students.

“This is the great dilemma for us,” said Lindstrom. “If we come out with an edict that says, ‘Don’t use your personal devices,’ our members will say, ‘Well, how do we do our jobs?’ Because the colleges are not providing us with the technology to do our jobs.” If the schools offered to provide the equipment, he added, “I think you’re talking about an entirely different conversation.”

The leaders of the two faculty unions say they’re hoping to meet with top MnSCU officials next week to try to persuade them to change course.

Lindstrom points out that many college teachers make a point of sharing their personal phone numbers with students, so they can contact them after hours. They go “above and beyond,” he said, “to serve the students. And now this is flying right in their face.”

Labor Union’s Donald Trump Endorsement Draws Fire From Immigration Activists

Dave Jamieson

03/31/2016

They want the AFL-CIO to kick the union out of its labor federation. But it’s not that easy.

A prominent immigrants rights group is asking the AFL-CIO labor federation to expel a member union that represents border patrol agents after it endorsed Donald Trump for president. 

The National Border Patrol Council praised the Republican candidate’s hardline immigration stance when it announced its support on Wednesday. That, in turn, prompted the group Not1More, which seeks an end to deportations, to appeal to the AFL-CIO to boot the union from its ranks.

The group launched a petition on Wednesday. In a letter to AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, it said the National Border Patrol Council, which represents 16,000 agents, is undermining the union federation’s progressive advocacy on immigration reform:

Throughout your tenure, the Border Patrol union has countered the federation’s mission of achieving immigration reform and protecting the rights of all workers. Instead it has protected abuse of power and sought to prevent justice in multiple cases of violence and wrong-doing. Now it has gone further by endorsing the racist and xenophobic campaign of Donald Trump which not only promises mass deportation but mass destruction of the broader labor movement and the values it’s built upon.

Not1More and the AFL-CIO are allies in a way in the fight against the Obama administration’s deportation of undocumented immigrants. In 2014, three dozen hunger strikers with Not1More met with Trumka at the labor federation’s headquarters, where he praised them for “calling attention to this untenable, unacceptable situation.”

The AFL-CIO’s increasingly progressive stance on issues like immigration and criminal justice doesn’t necessarily jibe with all unions, particularly those representing workers in law enforcement who oppose reform. Liberal unions have similarly called on the labor federation to terminate the membership of the International Union of Police Associations, on the grounds that it defends police brutality.

But cutting off a member union from the AFL-CIO isn’t a simple matter, even if its politics conflict with those of the labor federation. The National Border Patrol Council is a smaller part of the American Federation of Government Employees, a major national union that represents federal workers. AFGE itself is a member of the AFL-CIO, and it’s far more liberal than its council of border patrol agents, having endorsed Hillary Clinton for president in December.

It isn’t clear whether the AFL-CIO could expel the National Border Patrol Council without also expelling AFGE as a whole. 

There’s also the much larger question of whether a labor federation should be in the business of exiling member unions because of their politics. Border patrol agents are workers, too, and a basic tenet of the labor movement is that all workers deserve a right to representation on the job. The AFL-CIO could publicly condemn a member union’s politics without necessarily banishing them from the country’s most powerful labor federation.

An AFL-CIO spokesman didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the call to drop the border patrol union.

For its own part, the border patrol union has made it abundantly clear that it is against the larger federation’s support for undocumented workers. On its website, the union says it “opposes all efforts by AFL-CIO to aid and support illegal aliens working illegally within the United States. Instead of focusing on increasing their per capita and membership through illegal aliens, the AFL-CIO should firmly oppose illegal immigration and instead support American workers.”

Trump has made xenophobic appeals to supporters ever since launching his campaign in June. He has advocated for banning Muslims from entering the United States, and has called undocumented Mexican immigrants “criminals” and “rapists.” He also has encouraged violence at his rallies, much of it directed at minority protesters.

Obamacare Is Crippling Labor Talks Nationwide

Zach Noble

May 27, 2014

It’s a prime example of unintended consequences: the Affordable Care Act, pitched to the American public as a boon for the working class, is stalling out labor negotiations around the country.

The Wall Street Journal reported:

Unions and employers are tussling over who will pick up the tab for new mandates, such as coverage for dependent children to age 26, as well as future costs, such as a tax on premium health plans starting in 2018. The question is poised to become a significant point of tension as tens of thousands of labor contracts covering millions of workers expire in the next several years, with ACA-related cost increases ranging from 5% to 12.5% in current talks.

Unions representing all kinds of workers, from Las Vegas casino employees to flight attendants, are being forced to negotiate new deals with management in order to bring health care coverage into ACA compliance, but are finding those negotiations stymied by the magnitude of health care cost hikes.

Besides the known increases in premiums and other costs, the relatively unknown future costs that will come as more provisions, such as the “Cadillac tax” on high-end coverage, are phased in.

Septa, Philadelphia’s regional transit system, estimates the Cadillac tax will bump up its healthcare costs by $15 million, or 12.5 percent, the Journal reported, and asked workers to contribute 1 percent of their pay to help cover that new cost.

The union rejected the proposal.

“They’re asking us to negotiate in the dark,” said the president of Transport Workers Union Local 234, the biggest union representing Septa workers.

Jim Ray, a lawyer who represents the Laborers International Union of North America in benefits negotiations, said these provisions have increased construction-industry health plans’ costs by 5 percent to 10 percent, and already resulted in lower wages for some laborers. He said employers are frequently seeking contract language to cap their own liability for future cost increases from the law.

More than a few labor representatives expressed disappointment and even a touch of surprise as they discussed the thwarted negotiations and rising healthcare costs brought on by Obamacare.

“When we first supported the calls for health-care reform,” Ray acknowledged, “we thought it was going to bring costs down.”

This isn’t the first time labor leaders have recognized the economic dangers posed by Obamacare.

Last summer, a group of union leaders wrote a letter to Democrats in Congress begging for ACA changes.

“The unintended consequences of the ACA are severe,” the letter warned. “Perverse incentives are already creating nightmare scenarios.”

Without a fix, the union heads wrote, “the ACA will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40-hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.”

Why Are Some Labor Unions Turning Against Obamacare and Calling for ‘Repeal’?

Billy Hallowell

May. 24, 2013 

WASHINGTON (AP) — When President Barack Obama pushed his health care overhaul plan through Congress, he counted labor unions among his strongest supporters.

But some unions leaders have grown frustrated and angry about what they say are unexpected consequences of the new law – problems that they say could jeopardize the health benefits offered to millions of their members.

The issue could create a political headache next year for Democrats facing re-election if disgruntled union members believe the Obama administration and Congress aren’t working to fix the problem.

“It makes an untruth out of what the president said, that if you like your insurance, you could keep it,” said Joe Hansen, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. “That is not going to be true for millions of workers now.”

The problem lies in the unique multiemployer health plans that cover unionized workers in retail, construction, transportation and other industries with seasonal or temporary employment. Known as Taft-Hartley plans, they are jointly administered by unions and smaller employers that pool resources to offer more than 20 million workers and family members continuous coverage, even during times of unemployment.

The union plans were already more costly to run than traditional single-employer health plans. The Affordable Care Act has added to that cost – for the unions’ and other plans – by requiring health plans to cover dependents up to age 26, eliminate annual or lifetime coverage limits and extend coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

“We’re concerned that employers will be increasingly tempted to drop coverage through our plans and let our members fend for themselves on the health exchanges,” said David Treanor, director of health care initiatives at the Operating Engineers union.

Workers seeking coverage in the state-based marketplaces, known as exchanges, can qualify for subsidies, determined by a sliding scale based on income. By contrast, the new law does not allow workers in the union plans to receive similar subsidies.

Bob Laszewski, a health care industry consultant, said the real fear among unions is that “a lot of these labor contracts are very expensive and now employers are going to have an alternative to very expensive labor health benefits.”

“If the workers can get benefits that are as good through Obamacare in the exchanges, then why do you need the union?” Laszewski said. “In my mind, what the unions are fearing is that workers for the first time can get very good health benefits for a subsidized cost someplace other than the employer.”

However, Laszewski said it was unlikely employers would drop the union plans immediately because they are subject to ongoing collective bargaining agreements.

Labor unions have been among the president’s closest allies, spending millions of dollars to help him win re-election and help Democrats keep their majority in the Senate. The wrangling over health care comes as unions have continued to see steady declines in membership and attacks on public employee unions in state legislatures around the country. The Obama administration walks a fine line between defending the president’s signature legislative achievement and not angering a powerful constituency as it looks ahead to the 2014 elections.

Union officials have been working with the administration for more than a year to try to get a regulatory fix that would allow low-income workers in their plans to receive subsidies. But after months of negotiations, labor leaders say they have been told it won’t happen.

“It’s not favoritism. We want to be treated fairly,” said Hansen, whose union has about 800,000 of its 1.3 million members covered under Taft-Hartley policies. “We would expect more help from this administration.”

Sabrina Siddiqui, a Treasury Department spokeswoman, declined to discuss the specifics of any negotiations between the administration and union officials. But she said the law helps bring down costs and improve quality of care.

Katie Mahoney, executive director of health policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said employers were concerned about possible increases in health care costs and would do what was needed to keep their businesses running and retain worker talent. The Chamber has not taken a position on the union concerns, but Mahoney said it was highly unlikely that the administration would consider subsidies for workers in the union plans.

“They are not going to offset the expense of added mandates under the health care law, which employers and unions are going to pay for,” Mahoney said.

Unions say their health care plans in many cases offer better coverage with broader doctors’ networks and lower premiums than what would be available in the exchanges, particularly when it comes to part-time workers.

Unions backed the health care legislation because they expected it to curb inflation in health coverage, reduce the number of uninsured Americans and level the playing field for companies that were already providing quality benefits. While unions knew there were lingering issues after the law passed, they believed those could be fixed through rulemaking.

But last month, the union representing roofers issued a statement calling for “repeal or complete reform” of the health care law. Kinsey Robinson, president of the United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers, complained that labor’s concerns over the health care law “have not been addressed, or in some instances, totally ignored.”

“In the rush to achieve its passage, many of the act’s provisions were not fully conceived, resulting in unintended consequences that are inconsistent with the promise that those who were satisfied with their employer-sponsored coverage could keep it,” Robinson said.

Harold Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Firefighters, said unions have been forceful in seeking solutions from the Obama administration, but none have been forthcoming. While Congress could address the problem by amending the health care law, Schaitberger said Senate Democrats told union leaders earlier this month that any new legislation was highly unlikely.

Opinion analysis: Result but no guidance on public unions’ fees (FINAL UPDATE)

Lyle Denniston Independent Contractor Reporter

March 29th, 2016

Final update 11:44 a.m.

Analysis

The most important labor union controversy to reach the Supreme Court in years sputtered to an end on Tuesday, with a four-to-four split, no explanation, and nothing settled definitely.  The one-sentence result in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association will leave intact, but on an uncertain legal foundation, a system of “agency fees” for non-union teachers in California — with the legal doubts for public workers’ unions across the nation probably lingering until a ninth Justice joins the Court at some point in the future.

The practical effect was to leave undisturbed a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which had simply found itself bound by a prior Supreme Court precedent upholding such fees against constitutional challenge.  The Ninth Circuit had before it a case specifically filed as a test of that precedent, and only the Supreme Court could revisit that prior ruling, binding on all lower courts.

The Court had heard the Friedrichs case on January 11 and, from all appearances then, it seemed to be on its way toward a five-to-four decision to declare that it would be unconstitutional for unions representing government employees to charge fees to workers they represent but who are not among its members, even when the fees cover the costs of normal union bargaining over working conditions, not lobbying or outright political advocacy.

But the death of Justice Antonin Scalia last month left the Court to either find a way still to decide the case, or to end it with an even split.  If it had actually tried since Scalia’s death to find a way around a split, that effort clearly came up short.  The result set no precedent, and thus left the constitutional issue dangling.

Shortly after Justice Scalia died, the Center for Individual Rights, a conservative legal advocacy group involved in the Friedrichs case, announced that it would ask the Justices to schedule a rehearing on the case if it were to split four to four.  The Center said at the time that it expected such a request would put the case off until the Court’s new Term, which is slated to begin on October 3.  (UPDATE: Lawyers involved said Tuesday that a rehearing petition will, in fact, be filed.)

Under the Court’s rules, a rehearing request in the Friedrichs case would have to be filed within twenty-five days following Tuesday’s ruling.  It would require the votes of five Justices to order such a reconsideration, and one of the five must have been one who had joined in the decision.  It is unclear how that rule would work when the judgment had been reached by an evenly divided Court.

Tuesday’s result in this key case marked the second time that the Court, with its membership reduced by one, had divided evenly in a case it had reviewed.  A week ago, it did so in a case about spouses’ responsibility for each others’ debts (Hawkins v. Community Bank of Raymore).

Although President Obama has nominated Judge Merrick B. Garland of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to succeed Justice Scalia, Senate Republican leaders have vowed to take no formal action on that nomination until after the presidential election on November 8.  It thus is unclear at this point when a ninth Justice might join the Court, and help it avoid further four-to-four splits in deciding cases.

If the GOP position does not change, a new Justice might be approved in a post-election Senate session, but otherwise would probably not be approved in time to join the Court before next March.

If the Court were to decide not to rehear the Friedrichs case, another option for confronting the same agency fee question would be in a different case that had worked its way through lower courts, and reached the Justices after there was a full bench.

Rauner calls pro-union Supreme Court ruling 'tragic'

Kim Geiger and Monique Garcia

Chicago Tribune

March 29, 2016

A key piece of Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner's multifront effort to chip away at union influence in Illinois was dealt a blow Tuesday when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal law that allows government employee unions to collect fees from nonmembers.

One of Rauner's first acts after taking over last year was to try to stop such fees from being passed on to unions. The issue ended up in a lawsuit that's pending in federal court in Chicago.

A similar case in California got to the high court first. In a 4-4 split decision, the Supreme Court affirmed a lower court ruling that rejected an Orange County teacher's claim that her free-speech rights were violated by being forced to support the union through about $650 a year in fees.

The tie vote was a relief to unions, who had been bracing for an unfavorable ruling after oral arguments in January indicated that a majority of the justices were skeptical of the fair-share arrangement. The death of Justice Antonin Scalia last month left the court without a majority, leading to the split decision.

Asked about the ruling during a school visit in LeRoyin east-central Illinois, Rauner called it a "tragic decision by the court."

"It's a loss for freedom of speech and freedom of political expression in the United States, it's a loss for teachers, I think it's a loss for all government employees," Rauner said. "It was clear that Justice Scalia would have supported freedom of speech and political affiliation and that decision would have gone the other way, but the court was split 4-4 and therefore upheld the lower court."

Unions applauded the Supreme Court's split decision but warned that it was likely not the final word on the issue.

"There's no doubt that these same wealthy special interests will continue their attacks in this venue and others and attempt to use the courts to bring further challenges to the rights of workers," said Anders Lindall, a spokesman for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31, the largest union for state workers in Illinois.

Illinois is one of about two-dozen states that requires its workers to pay "fair share" fees to public employee unions if they are not union members. The theory is that workers who are not part of a union still benefit from its services, such as negotiating new contracts and handling worker grievances, even if they don't support the union's political agenda. Fair-share fees allow the union to collect money from nonmembers to cover the cost of those services, but those dollars can't be spent on political activities such as campaign contributions.

Last year, Rauner issued an executive order that directed the state to stop passing fair-share fees on to unions, arguing that it's impossible to ensure that the fees aren't used for political activity because the unions directly negotiate with the government.

Anticipating legal blowback, Rauner also filed a federal lawsuit seeking to have his decision declared legal and hoping to bring the issue to the Supreme Court.

Rauner also had weighed in on the California case, filing a brief with the Supreme Court in which he contended that public sector union activities in Illinois can't be separated between political and nonpolitical.

"Even those union activities that are confined to collective bargaining have significant political implications," Rauner's lawyers wrote. "Enriched by contributions from members and nonmembers alike, public sector unions in Illinois, whose labor and management sit on the same side of the table, have negotiated wages and benefits that have unrealistically kept going up while the state economy has kept going down. The connection is hardly coincidental."

Rauner's attempt to withhold Illinois workers' fair-share fees was put on hold last year when a judge in St. Clair County ordered the state to keep passing the fees along while the matter continued to play out in court.

When Rauner tried to press the issue in federal court, a judge dismissed him from the case, saying Rauner lacked standing to challenge public unions in his official capacity because he had "no personal interest at stake." Three workers who also were contesting the payments were allowed to proceed with their own complaint, and Rauner on Tuesday said he hopes that case will bring the matter back to the high court.

"Our case is winding its way through the courts and it will get to the Supreme Court probably at some point in the future," Rauner said. "And we will just continue the fight for the freedom of political expression and the right of free speech for government employees. It's a fundamental issue."

Opinion analysis: Result but no guidance on public unions’ fees

Lyle Denniston Independent Contractor Reporter

March 29th, 2016

Analysis

The most important labor union controversy to reach the Supreme Court in years sputtered to an end on Tuesday, with a four-to-four split, no explanation, and nothing settled definitely.  The one-sentence result in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association will leave intact, but on an uncertain legal foundation, a system of “agency fees” for non-union teachers in California — with the legal doubts for public workers’ unions across the nation probably lingering until a ninth Justice joins the Court at some point in the future.

The practical effect was to leave undisturbed a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which had simply found itself bound by a prior Supreme Court precedent upholding such fees against constitutional challenge.  The Ninth Circuit had before it a case specifically filed as a test of that precedent, and only the Supreme Court could revisit that prior ruling, binding on all lower courts.

The Court had heard the Friedrichs case on January 11 and, from all appearances then, it appeared on its way toward a five-to-four decision to declare that it would be unconstitutional for unions representing government employees to charge fees to workers they represent but who are not among its members, even when the fees cover the costs of normal union bargaining over working conditions, not lobbying or outright political advocacy.

But the death of Justice Antonin Scalia last month left the Court to either find a way still to decide the case, or to end it with an even split.  If it had actually tried since Scalia’s death to find a way around a split, that effort clearly came up short.  The result set no precedent, and thus left the constitutional issue dangling.

Police unions agree: Dallas chief must go

Jason Whitely, WFAA

March 28, 2016

DALLAS — It was a rare sight on Monday as the city’s four police unions actually agreed on something: That David Brown should no longer lead the department.

"If he doesn't listen to them, then some of us are going to have to rethink our position with the chief," said Rene Martinez, director of the League of United Latin American Citizens District 3 and a Brown supporter.

Martinez sat in on the chief's meeting Monday afternoon with 150 Latino officers. He recalled Brown's words: "He pleaded. He pleaded. He said, 'We've got to do this. I need your help to address crime.'"

Hours earlier before a City Council committee, Brown outlined an overhaul at the Dallas Police Department which includes drastic scheduling changes, moving 600 officers to the night shift in an effort to fight rising violent crime.

"If I were a criminal in Dallas right now, I'd leave and not come back," Brown said. "We are bringing the full force of the police department to bear on this spike in crime."

But the abrupt and unprecedented scheduling shift by the chief led the Black Police Association to take an extraordinary step and publicly say it would stop supporting Chief Brown, who is African-American.

"We have African-American officers -- large numbers of them -- calling us asking that we pull our support," said Thomas Glover, president of the BPA. "We didn't just do this without thought. It wasn't a decision that was made hastily. There are a whole litany of things I'll be outlining in the next day or so as to why this took place, and again, I want to repeat we made every effort possible to work with Chief Brown.”

"We will work with whoever they put in front of us, but right now, the officers don't like the coach we have leading this department," said Dallas Police Association president Ron Pinkston.

As WFAA first reported on Sunday, Mayor Mike Rawlings stands behind the chief. On Monday, Brown brushed off calls to step down.

"I just don't have time for union politics. I'm focused solely straightforward on making sure that we save lives," the chief said.

Still, Brown's career is at a crossroads.

He grew up in this department and has 33 years with Dallas police. Without faith of the rank-and-file, the chief's career depends on support from City Hall.

On Monday night, the four police unions issued this joint statement:

We had a productive meeting with Mayor Rawlings. Our primary message was simple – if we stay with the current policies of the DPD leadership, the crime rate will continue to be a burden on Dallas families and businesses.

Our officers are the best in the country, but the Chief's policies are making it difficult for us to do our job. We look forward to continuing our conversations with Mayor Rawlings and other City Hall leaders to make the changes needed to best protect our families from violent crime.

Every family in every part of Dallas has the right to live in peace. That should be the top priority at City Hall.

National Latino Law Enforcement Organization
Black Police Association
Dallas Police Association
Fraternal Order Of Police

On Monday night, the four unions said they plan more conversations with Mayor Mike Rawlings and City Council members.

(© 2016 WFAA)

County GOP honors teacher challenging union fees

By Joshua Stewart 

March 28, 2016

Teacher whose Supreme Court case might change unions receives award

SAN DIEGO — San Diego Republicans have honored the lead plaintiff in a Supreme Court case that has the potential to change the role organized labor has in politics and the workplace.

Rebecca Friedrichs, the Orange County teacher who brought Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, received the county GOP’s Torch of Freedom award at the political group’s Lincoln Reagan Dinner at the Hilton Bayfront on Saturday.

Friedrichs sued the teachers union and argued that the labor organization should not be able to collect “agency fees” from its members. These fees, which pay for contract negotiations, amount to political speech, she argued, and being compelled to pay the fees violated her free speech rights. Her opponents argue that allowing members to forgo dues will result in members who benefit from union representation but do not contribute to the union’s expenses.

The Supreme Court heard the case on Jan. 11, and if justices side with Friedrichs, workers would not have to pay the agency fees, potentially weakening unions’ financial footing, but allowing workers who disagree with the union to stop paying fees.

The case, while significant on its own, has drawn attention because it may be headed for a 4-4 decision due to the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia seemed poised to reject a decision of a lower court and decide in Friedrichs’ favor, but his death on Feb. 13 means the court will likely be split and the lower court’s decision will stand.

San Diego Republicans gave 21 other awards at the dinner, and bestowed honors on politicians, campaign workers and party operatives. Recipients include:

▪ Poway Mayor Steve Vaus: Local Elected Official of the Year

▪ Escondido Mayor Sam Abed: Taxpayer Champion of the Year

▪ San Diego City Attorney Jan Goldsmith: Lifetime Achievement Award

Party Chairman Tony Krvaric said recipients are selected by the local party’s leadership.

The annual dinner had around 750 attendees and has grown every year for at least five years, Krvaric said. It raised around $405,000 this year through sponsorships and ticket sales, up from around $351,000 last year.

“It’s grown every year and we’ve outgrown every facility except for the Hilton Bayfront now,” Krvaric said.

Most of the funds will go to supporting Republicans in the general election in November, he said.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, was the keynote speaker.