The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Jan. 11 in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, which could have a major impact on teacher wages and benefits. At the center of the case is yet another debate surrounding free speech and money — issues that have continued to pop up in the courts in recent years (Citizens United v. FEC, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.).

The court's decision may reach far beyond the classroom and into the heart of union representation as a whole. But let's focus solely on the effect on education.

Rebecca Friedrichs and nine other teachers contend that they should not be forced to pay mandatory fees to the California Teachers Association (CTA) when they disagree with the organization's politics and viewpoints. On the surface, the argument seems simple enough, but to understand why the fees are mandatory, we need to look at a case from nearly 40 years ago — Abood v. Detroit Board of Education.

That Supreme Court case in 1977 ruled that public sector employees who are not part of a union must still pay fees equivalent of union dues when receiving the benefits of the union's collective bargaining. The aim of the decision was to prevent "free riders" — those who pay no dues but still receive pay raises and benefit increases negotiated by the union. The court conceded its decision "has an impact upon their First Amendment interests" but felt it was justified for the greater good.

If the Abood ruling is overturned, what would that mean for teachers?

Patty Taylor, a teacher and counselor in San Bernardino, California, who is heavily involved in union work at the local, state and national level, makes it clear teachers would suffer.

"There would be a negative effect on wages, health benefits, pensions and even school funding in general," Taylor said. "This is about maintaining parity. It is the strength and power of our collective union voice that brings us to the table, that allows the teacher's voice on curricular issues or the counselor's voice on counseling issues."

Ed Sibby, a communications consultant with the CTA, points out that salaries have come a long way in California thanks to the hard work of the unions and the member fees that support them. When he started his education career in 1985, the average starting salary for teachers was $18,000.

Compare that to today where the Savanna School District in Orange County — the same district in which Friedrichs, a 28-year teaching veteran, is employed — negotiated with the local teachers' union in November to increase the salary for veteran teachers to $109,000 per year.

"We're talking about K-8, middle and elementary school teachers making six figures," Sibby said. "And they deserve it."

Yet Brian J. Blake, who is in his seventh year as a superintendent in the Sanborn Regional School District in New Hampshire, said his district does not incorporate mandatory fees into collective bargaining agreements, and it hasn't had a negative effect on salaries.

"From my experience, it won't change things very much at all," said Blake, who was named the New Hampshire Superintendent of the Year for 2016 by the New Hampshire School Administrator's Association. "There seem to be pretty strong unions throughout our state without agency fees. That may be different in different states, but not in my experience."

Even Sibby admits the CTA doesn't expect a significant hit to its 325,000-strong membership should they lose the case.

"Our union is more unified than ever," he said.

However, any loss of revenue or power would certainly have some effect — especially when facing expensive legal fights or ballot initiatives.

"The impact on bargaining and our ability to fight initiatives like the pension reform measures proposed for the 2016 ballot could have a chilling effect," Taylor said. "One fear is that if unions can no longer spend money on politics, it will only be big corporations who are funding political campaigns and initiatives as the Supreme Court gave them that ability in Citizens United."

In the oral arguments, the Supreme Court's four liberal justices appear to be siding with the CTA by invoking "stare decisis," which means there is not a compelling enough reason to overturn a prior decision.

Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia had shown sympathy to unions in the past, but during the oral arguments he questioned whether the mandatory fees were necessary for unions to prosper. Based on their questions and discussion during oral arguments, Samuel Alito and the other three conservative justices appeared to be leaning toward Friedrichs and the other plaintiffs.

How will this all shake out when the Supreme Court delivers its decision in a few months? Even those involved in the case have no idea.

"Case law falls on our side," Sibby said. "What I can't factor is the determination by [Justice] Alito and others to eliminate the decision of Abood."

Taylor remains optimistic, but she agrees it's difficult to determine what the justices will decide.

"I honestly have no idea," she said. "It is our hope that the Court will uphold the prior rulings supporting public workers' rights to organize and advocate for public education."