SACRAMENTO, CA - As if California's education unions weren't already powerful and wealthy enough, a bill is now marching through the State Legislature that would dump tens of millions of additional dollars into union coffers.

The legislation, SB 1960 by State Senate President John Burton (D-San Francisco), would force thousands of
non-union school employees who currently pay no union dues or fees to pay agency-shop fees to the unions.
These fees supposedly cover a union's collective bargaining costs during contract negotiations.

Currently, under the 1975 Rodda Act, public-school employees may elect to have a union represent them in
collective bargaining negotiations. An agency-shop fee may be imposed on non-union employees, but only as part of the negotiated contract and only after an agency-fee election has been conducted under state supervision and a majority of employees votes to impose the fee. In a number of school districts, such elections have been held and agency-shop fees have been voted down. The Burton bill, however, would radically change the method of collecting these fees.

Under the Burton legislation, agency-shop fees would no longer be part of collective bargaining contracts that
have to receive majority approval by employees, but would be imposed automatically on all non-union
employees. In order for non-union employees to avoid paying the fees, 30 percent of bargaining unit members
would have to petition to challenge the fee system in order to trigger an election. However, as the education
research organization School Services of California points out, since collection of signatures is not easy,
"unions representing even a minority of the unit membership are likely to have the windfall of added fee
collections."

How big a windfall? According to School Services’ estimate, the California Teachers Association (CTA)
could collect fees totaling $20 million, while the California School Employees Association (CSEA) could
collect $10.5 million.

Union advocates claim that non-union employees should be forced to pay agency-shop fees because they receive the benefits of the union representing them at the bargaining table. The problem is that union
representation could also confer significant costs on employees. For example, math and science teachers may
earn lower salaries because unions bargain for uniform salary structures for all teachers even though math and
science teachers are in high demand and could earn higher salaries if teachers could bargain individually
with districts.

On a more fundamental level, agency-shop fees are incompatible with the principles of freedom of
association. Economics professor Charles Baird, California State University, Hayward, who has fought
against agency-shop fees in California higher education, has written that unions are private
associations, so imposing "mandatory submission of minorities to the will of majorities in private affairs
by statute is to breach the constitutional wall of separation between government powers and individual
rights of free choice."

Despite such objections, the Burton bill is on a fast track to become law. When the measure hits Gov. Davis's
desk, he'll have the choice of enhancing his moderate image or pandering to union greed and coercion. The
betting in Sacramento is that he'll cave to union power.

-Lance T. Izumi