The legislation in question would update the 40-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act, which by all accounts needs reform to cover hundreds of potentially dangerous chemicals.

 

On March 29, organized labor won a major victory when the U.S. Supreme Court deadlocked 4 to 4 in a case that threatened to devastate public sector unions and their ability to collect fees from all represented workers. See: Cases before the U.S. Supreme Court that could have staggering impacts on Oakland and our entire country

At issue in the case was whether employers can require that workers who do not want to join the union pay union "agency fees." Unions rely on those fees to fight for all workers, including those who decline to join. In fact unions have a duty to represent all workers regardless of whether they are union members.

The Court heard oral arguments in January, prior to the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia. Many observers expected the Court to rule against unions, but without Justice Scalia, the Court's tie vote affirmed the judgment of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upholding unions' ability to collect agency fees.

As the New York Times put it, a ruling against the unions "would have been the culmination of a decades-long campaign by a group of prominent conservative foundations aimed at weakening unions that represent teachers and other public employees."

On behalf of Oakland, I joined cities such as Los Angeles and San Francisco in filing an amicus brief supporting the constitutionality of union agency fees.

The amicus brief pointed out that employees who decline to join the union still enjoy the same rights, benefits and protections as union members. In fact he union has a legal obligation to advocate for non-union employees if their employers treat them unfairly. 

For example, if a teacher is fired unjustly for teaching a lesson about evolution in a conservative school district, the union will defend her, whether or not she is a member. Teachers and other workers already have the right to decline to join the union, but they should pay their fair share of the costs of union representation and advocacy on their behalf.

The High Court's ruling is a victory, but only in one battle. We can expect more cases challenging the right of workers to bargain collectively and stand up for decent working conditions.

For this and other reasons, we cannot overstate the importance of the next appointment to the Supreme Court. That justice could cast the vote that decides whether union workers will have a voice and remain part of the middle class in this country, as well as many other critical issues such as a woman's right to choose and the constitutionality of affirmative action to remedy centuries of discrimination in education.

Ensuring equal access to justice for low-income residents and renters
 

This week I wrote to Governor Jerry Brown, Attorney General Kamala Harris, California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye, other state officials and cities asking for help to ensure equal access to justice for low-income residents and renters in Alameda County. When my Office became aware of the decision, I sent a letter to the Presiding Judge and the Court Executive Officer on behalf of the residents of Oakland asking that the Court reconsider the plan and maintain a Self-Help Center and continue to hear unlawful detainer cases in Oakland. My correspondence with the Court and the Court's response are attached to this report to the City Council.

More info