I am in favor of the Petitioner in the name of Rebecca Friedrichs who supports the idea of overturning the precedent Abood v. Detroit Board Education where the Supreme Court ruled that public agency shop arrangements are constitutional. Public-sector agency shop arrangements aren’t completely incorrect in regards to the subject of having the right to represent since they do have the “legal duty to represent all workers” (“Supreme Court takes case on ‘fair share’ union fees,” 2015). It explains how they do have the constitutionality behind representation and also behind their practices (Abood v. Detroit Board Education) yet regarding their actions, it doesn’t mean that the ruling in Abood v. Detroit Board Education should’nt be overturned especially considering unions require nonmembers to pay “their fair share of fees” for bargaining costs despite the …show more content…
Sarah asked the respondents how the people in the union are able to provide for these fees when they make an average of $45,000 a year with thought of other expenses in which Julia justified that the fees required barely affect their overall pay. I agree with Julia, yet she missed the fact that having the assurance of a back-up plan in case of any emergency is important to for families so having the choice to pay for the union or their families is a decision that should ultimately lead to family. Both relates to the 1st Amendment in our Constitution due to the subject about the freedom of expression. I agree with both since the union insisting and requiring nonmembers to pay for fees or to give consent is a violation of their 1st Amendment rights. Why should a nonmember pay or have a choice to pay for the fees when they are not even members of the union in the first place? In my opinion, nonmembers shouldn’t be involved since their willingness and membership isn’t even certain so their money shouldn’t be