says could extend exclusive representation for any rational basis because supposedly individuals are not associated with their exclusive representative or with its speech on their behalf and estimates decision should be reversed will extent that it gives an exclusivity to representation be on the lease and i would be candid to say i don't see how it goes that is i understand your argument in the brief you say it does that cause any approach to the government it is in effect an exercise of the guaranteed constitutionally guaranteed to and who petition for redress if we do not accept guarantee clause is that the end of your case if i understand the question correctly justice souter is if in fact you're extending explicit representation by virtue of the act no i thought your argument was that the exclusive representation fines your clients even outside the employment relationship and bargaining a boat the employment relationship bargaining in the employment relationship well yes because they're not actually employees of the common but they are contractors who would like to bargain with the state is that correct i don't think it's fair to characterize them as government contractors rather their private business is in some cases relatives who care for public a very much in the same way i wouldn't say that of grocery store that accept food stamps payment the government contract itself the government what i say the family childcare providers who happen to provide care to some people who pay the public assistance money are fact government contracts but i mean the exact same thing you're saying that be closed their relationship is although it sci you was their exclusive agent you to approach the government with respect to policy matters that might be tangential to what didn't directly honor in that the representation here goes to certain aspects of how massachusetts income eligible child care program is operated on the exact subject of party or delineated sections jian age of the act and so the that respect is bargaining over certain aspects of how the program is one including rates or payment which is actually the rates that the public aid recipient is entitled to so in effect yes he was bargaining for how much public disagree with the position taken by the exclusive bargaining agent in your client's address a letter to the state agency saying don't buy the argument or the position that the exclusive bargain can is putting before you it's wrong for the following reasons and your clients and a letter like yes your honor ok however the fact that individuals are free to speak doesn't justify compelling them to support a message against their will why are they being compelled to support it they are not asked you join the union they are not asked to pay we're the union anything and they can express a dissenting view if they choose to express it because the union as a matter of deal individual providers on the subject are good at the massachusetts supreme court case and as a local five or nine percent labor commission goes into that restriction but more than a point here it's not so much the massachusetts a simply choosing to have listen meet with the c c a member of the union would also have to be present at the meeting and the state could not adopt the position your client took and that meeting unless it was consistent with the collective bargaining agreement focus on that you seem to be pitching a broader argument to us which i now understand as number one they're not really state employees and number material well issues it regards the operation of the child care program which involves the subjects of parenting or encouraging education and training for childcare providers of improving recruitment which is a very broad term and then payment collective bargaining well because it concerns the operation of a program and then voluntary petitioning on this matter of concern lobby so say for example if an association that represented corporate daycare centers decided to talk to e c officials and and so i think that's what makes it matters of a policy also instructive on this harris and harris said that yes you know you local in that state it's bargaining with the state over certain aspects of its medicaid program was in fact on a matter of a concern and that it wasn't argument the threshold question here is does as you use exclusive representation compel these individuals providers to associate with the units message once the answer is yes then all these other issues go to is that compel association justified under exacting screw the just always work how are they compelled when you agree that if they don't agree with the union's position they can drop a letter the agency saying we think the unions all we want because they can disagree and all that the act does is permit home child care providers who receive subsidies from the state to select if they wish through majority vote process the unions act as their exclusive representative to negotiate a labor contract or could it could it could it could it require require collective bargaining for physicians who receive medicare paid medicaid payments from patients where your honor in order for there to be an negotiated with the providers union so to speak if the if that were gone when i i would i would think that most people would question deeming doctors public employees just because a portion of their income came for medicaid your honor i don't know respectfully i don't see anything necessarily constitutionally problematic about a state saying to a group of regulated persons you may if you wish and select through majority vote process a representative to negotiate with the government to speak to the government and so negotiate over even the contract terms or even per night over policy ma not strictly related to contract terms and then what is what is added if anything is added by deeming in this case the public employees your honor it is one mechanism in in massachusetts or chapter one fifty even a general loss through which that and can be accomplished so in effect you're saying if they had not deemed them they could have reenacted what is it one fifty be for the benefit of these providers brief there is no first amendment or here playing us characterize it as the state selecting a preferred advocate advocate on behalf of fighters but that is not what happened here what happened here is the state permitted providers to select if they a provider through majority vote process i'm sorry representative through majority vote process to negotiate with the state over the terms and conditions of their employment so if it is overruled you would say that would have no exclusive representation without more without any required fees which is the case here we're not represent first amendment injury what about this danger i'm sort of corruption in the system which is the state has created the reason for this union to exist it's given the list of all providers to one or be sort of lower than might have otherwise been expected from a truly independent well your honor the political process protects against that in massachusetts both in terms of the way the collective bargaining agreement here is structured and as a matter of massachusetts law matters that are subject to appropriation have to be decided by the legislature sciri regardless of what i forum in disagreement with a expressed opposition to a union so if nonunion members of the bargaining unit or people who oppose the union think the rates that have been negotiated are too high they're free to speak to the union to say the union got it all wrong you should reject these rates and separates at some lower rate so again the first amendment rights of the providers here are not implicated and thus the law should be subject only to rational basis  we ok what is the rational basis the rational basis is as stated in the act your honor to improve child care for low income in at risk families by hansing collaboration and cooperation why such a judgment there's nothing in the record to reflect that explicitly but i think that was the sense of legislature and the reason why it passed the act in the first place it's a special relationship because we have children in need who are involved at about what you know like judge saleyard looking for your honor if the state imposes upon or infringes the constitutional rights of a regulated party then there would presumably be heightened scrutiny that requires the state not only to come forth with a heightened or compelling rationale but also a demonstration of the fit between ends and means but here because there is no imposition upon first amendment rights but the act is subject only t rational basis review you know you could view this in categorical terms as there are no association no or actually non association the rights protected by the first amendment involved here or you could say mike i didn't michigan case in the one nine hundred eighty s there was a powerful series of this sense about the non i think the exercise of your ability not to associate with others i know the way the court came out  y to have the wing of the court speak the way it did suggest to me that we don't want to say there's no even arguable non a right not to suggest that we have no justification it still may be rational but i do mean to say no court has ever recognized that exclusive representation standing alone represents first amendment harm that may be justified by the state under something of heightened scrutiny the cases that have a plight heightened scrutiny aboard arguably knox parasitic when we're about the compelled speech that comes with compulsory fees otherwise with some very limited exceptions the field of labor relations has generally been thought to be left to the praga and the discretion of legislatures i agree but that's where  say that as far as massachusetts goes one fifty deals with public employment so there in order to utilize chapter one fifty either need be some form of an employment relationship and the court respectfully need not necessarily resolve the question of how far the state can go with other regulated parties but i think it is worth making the point that where the regulated persons remain free to form associations as they wish to oppose in their representative or it may not be first amendment ok thank you because that's not how any democratic system works and therefore the dissenting members of the party unit are not being associated with those positions in the sense that's relevant for purposes of first amendment expressive association the specific claim that the plaintiffs are making here is inconsistent with the supreme court's analysis and even if workers don't have to join a union don't have to pay any money to the union have complete affirmative first amendment rights like all other citizens to disagree with the union even if people wouldn't assume if they agreed with union that there's a per se expressive association that's being made right said that the faculty members were free not to associate with the exclusive representative whereas the fact of the matter is that some number of those providers may disagree with you and then maybe i'll leave a piece russian how it justifies not in the employment contract what in this amendment rights are being infringed but at the government had a sufficient justification because they were the governments of oil is a government that way to infringe those rights but these are people government employees people we're dealing with money the government gives them they may within their own corporations if they were to quote read or go well within their own proprietary businesses and and i just wonder how far afield we've won for money when we claim here depends also on your reading of it that was rejected in in night some of the dissenters said that in a brood we held that exclusive representation is a burden on first amendment rights but that it was justified in going to itself and the majority in footnote thirteen of my rejected that interpretation and set that in the burden which require on the workers to actually join you in the union and thereby associate they did not adopt this per se association argument that the courts being asked here to adopt i would note also that the national labor relations act would have its constitutionality called into doubt all right if there was such a person a association between the speech of the exclusive representative and the members of the bargaining unit the private sector workers covered by the national labor relations act or not the government's employees either and the national labor relations board is certifying after an election that the entire bargaining unit is represented by an exclusive or presented at least under the analysis of the league of lawyers laws and so now it's been assumed that congress can do that if there's a rational basis for regulating commerce not a compelling interest which the national labor relations act in all its aspects is narrow down i'm finally the court's decision to put limits on the use of exclusive representation systems the limits is on the permissible meaning of exclusivity the supreme court was very clear in the city of madison trite school district that exclusivity cannot keep people from speaking in the same matter as all other citizens the union cannot be the exclusive representative for purposes of dealing with the legislature for purposes of and yucaipa public more people can speak for themselves the courts also been very clear and saying that systems that do impose burdens on first amendment rights those where you have to pay fees or try new yorkers ation those stricter strict scrutiny it's not disputed here that under this system dissenting providers don't have to do anything to indicates that the union actually crowing he organization if there was some obligation to wear a union buttons coward and signs do something else that indicated support for the massacre of york station or if there were some restriction on the front of first amendment rights to participate in public discourse like all other citizens here the commonwealth is just deciding that in a particular process not a four  process of contract negotiation it wants to meet with a majority representative at doesn't take away any of the first amendment rights of people who don't support the majority representing it opens a new process consistent with the collective bargaining agreement the state is precluded the way i read this statute from adopting now yo well i believe you ron is referring to the suction the bargaining agreement is not being followed there's no doubt that bargaining unit members can you can gauge in any speech they want or the government and that the government can listen to them that they're not under any re roger i believe the comebacks are the threshold question in this case which is does exclusive representation compel association speech in a way that triggers first minute scrutiny and yes please but then a fight several ways in which the quoted mean simply that the when when a collective bargaining agreement has been reached the terms for example compensation will apply to everyone whether a member of the union not a member of the union comes within the the program it does not mean as i know is that the the government the agency cannot listen to a  nonunion employees nonunion provider if it wishes to do so the truth is it probably won't but it can listen and in fact it can reject the union's position in the collective bargaining that means that if the the the the agreement with the with is with the the union is you know they'll be paid five dollars an hour the state can't go out and pay a nine union member six dollars an hour that is true but it goes prior to that so necessary local five zero nine versus the labor relations commission in that case the commonwealth merely surveyed employees represented by the suu before a contract was agreed to the contract negotiations ongoing voice but also the impression in the eyes of employees that the suu was the only person who could speak for them and the fact that interest could be undermined strongly shows that exclusive representation does create the impression and the legal i wouldn't say that it hinges but it supports the case because again this is a case of compelled association and i want to address tonight very quickly one of the ways nice distinguishable indifferent to the fact that only dealt with employees isn't the question  that's right in the first paragraph the opinion does restricting the ability of nonunion employees to participate in union bargaining sessions infringe upon their rights to be heard by government that is not the claim here the claim here is can representation was justified by the labor peace interest revisit that but that doesn't help the providers here just hope yes you are you here because harris rejected the proposition that the labor peace interest applies outside of the employment implications conclusion isn't necessarily dispositive here i believe the analysis here is does exclusive representation hell so she should if yes then it has to satisfy exacting scrutiny but it can't do so under harris  first amendment rights because it forces him into a mandatory agency relationship with an organization with you with which you disagree grab the cases yes thank you thank you it's very well argue