As a public-school teacher who has been teaching Spanish to high school students in Marietta for 15 years now, I cannot imagine a more rewarding job.
However, in order to practice my beloved profession, I was forced to pay approximately $14,000 to the union over the course of my career. The exact amount is as indecipherable as Cretan hieroglyphics and just as shrouded in mystery. These fees were extracted from me even though I profoundly disagreed with how those funds were spent and with the “representation” my union purportedly conducted on my behalf.
That money was used on a political agenda, which even included — as I discovered in 2010 — a political campaign waged against my own husband who was then running for office. Imagine my dismay when I received political propaganda against my husband’s candidacy that was paid for and mailed by an organization related to my own union.
As their children head back to school, many parents send along with them supplies for their teachers, including Kleenex tissues, paper towels, hand sanitizer and maybe even some pencils or art supplies. But what about the many other things teachers opt to provide for their students without reimbursement?
The recent rise of sites like DonorsChoose, a fundraising platform for educators, and Teachers Pay Teachers, a site that allows them to buy and sell educational resources, underscore that many educators are left to fully supply their classrooms on their own. Indeed, the U.S. Department of Education released survey findings in May that showed 94 percent of public school teachers paid for classroom supplies without reimbursement during the 2014-2015 school year. Among those teachers, the average amount spent was $479.
Some educators publicly share links to their Amazon wish lists filled with suggestions for supplies, and recently, a report from Airbnb showed nearly one in 10 hosts on the lodging site in the U.S. are teachers, many of whom are trying to make ends meet. During the past year, many teachers have participated in walkouts across the country as they seek higher wages and improved funding for their classrooms.
It’s been more than a month since the Supreme Court’s landmark Janus decision making financial support for unions completely voluntary for teachers and other public-sector workers. In education, there are plenty of predictions that this threat will, at last, force some moderation and cooperation from teachers unions. Much of this comes from Democratic education reformers who have always been conflicted about the specific ways the unions operate relative to broader aspirations for unionism. Conservatives hope Janus will weaken, if not marginalize, the anti-choice and anti-reform teachers unions.
In practice, everyone will probably be disappointed, because the most likely outcome is somewhat paradoxical: teachers unions that are smaller but more strident than they are today. The Supreme Court could have issued a narrower ruling giving Mark Janus some relief while preserving some features of the agency fee arrangement. Instead, a five-justice majority upended the public-sector unions’ economic model.
Still, those who see the ruling as something close to a death knell ignore the enormous power teachers unions retain. Collective bargaining agreements and other union-friendly norms remain in place. Even post-Janus, they still have a lot of money to deploy and a lot of leverage in low-turnout school board elections and gerrymandered legislative races where the action is in the primaries. And, as union leaders like to say, management gets the union it deserves. Few observers would give education administration high marks for effectiveness, and education policy these days is an incoherent goat rodeo. So teachers don’t have to work in schools very long before many decide it would be good to have someone looking out for them.
The much-discussed Supreme Court decision in the case of Janus v. AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) is now just over a month old, but already we see states reacting to its important central holding. At its core, the high court ruling simply held that no money can be taken from a state or local government employee’s paycheck and transferred to a union unless that employee first affirmatively consents.
Many refer to this new requirement as “opt-in.” The reasoning behind the employee’s decision is as basic as the Supreme Court’s holding: The First Amendment does not allow any governmental entity to force an individual to fund speech unless he or she first agrees to that funding.
Teachers are the largest category of employees affected by the Janus decision. The biggest impacts of the high court ruling could be to allow school districts to break out of a decades-old collective bargaining mindset, and to encourage a new spirit of professionalism in the teaching profession.
Mission Viejo, CA – The Association of American Educators (AAE), a national non-union professional educator association, announced today that it is doubling job protection benefits for members without raising dues. Following the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Janus v. AFSCME, more public school educators and staff are expected to be exploring their professional association options.
Throughout their career, educators can experience workplace issues that threaten their job as well as their professional reputation. Along with liability insurance and protection against lawsuits, AAE professional membership includes employment rights coverage for members experiencing termination, demotion, involuntary transfer, suspension, or other disciplinary actions. By including job protection benefits in each member’s liability insurance policy, AAE is able to provide legal support at the onset of workplace issues while still charging only $198 per year to members. The doubling of each of the three levels of job protection now covers up to $10,400 in legal fees paid by the insurance policy to defend each member’s due process rights for covered incidents.
Gary Beckner, Founder and President of AAE, explained, “AAE was founded to provide quality professional benefits so that students aren’t losing great teachers to misunderstandings, false accusations, or petty issues. AAE’s employment rights coverage is a shield against very real threats to a member’s entire career.”
Columbus, OH – Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Janus v. AFSCME decision, The Buckeye Institute filed two separate lawsuits and corresponding preliminary injunctions calling for an immediate end to the laws that force public-sector employees to accept their union’s representation.
“The Janus decision was an important victory for hardworking public servants across the country, but many of these same employees are still forced to accept their union’s representation that they didn’t ask for and do not want,” said Robert Alt, president and chief executive officer of The Buckeye Institute and a lead attorney for both plaintiffs. “The two cases The Buckeye Institute has filed call on the courts to immediately end compelled ‘exclusive representation.’ These capable public servants have the right to speak for themselves and should be released from forced association with unions and advocacy with which they disagree.”
Teaching is a noble profession. It enlightens minds, promotes wisdom and insight, and opens the doors of opportunity to a brighter future.
Good teachers deserve our respect and admiration for the hard work they do in educating children. Over the last 30 years, though, respect for the teaching profession in public schools has declined due to its association with monopoly government unions.
Government unions hold a lock on access to teaching jobs, because public schools are banned from hiring teachers who are not dues- or fee-paying members.
In Washington state, all public school teachers, and most other school employees, have been forced to pay the union about $1,000 a year or face termination. The state’s most powerful union, the Washington Education Association (WEA) takes in about $37 million a year this way.
Most of what members and the general public know about how unions spend dues money comes courtesy of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) of 1959. Unions subject to the law are required to itemize virtually every financial transaction they make and file an annual report, known as an LM-2. Because of the LM-2, members and the public know how much unions have spent on ballot initiatives, contributions to advocacy groups, and compensation to each officer and employee.
The law was interpreted from the beginning to apply only to unions operating in the private sector. That may be about to change, however, and it will have dramatic consequences for affiliates of many public employee unions — particularly teacher unions — that have been operating out of the public eye.
Before I can explain how or why, we’ll need a short history lesson. I’ll try to make it as painless as possible.
An employee at the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has won the first refund of mandatory union fees stemming from a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that public employees cannot be required to pay unions dues or fees if they opt out of membership.
Debora Nearman filed a lawsuit in April challenging the mandatory union costs as a condition of her employment at the agency. After the Janus decision was issued June 27, the Service Employees International Union Local 503 moved to settle the case and return more than two years of fees to Nearman, or $2,959.81.
Nearman, the wife of Oregon Rep. Mike Nearman, R-Independence, said the SEIU actively opposed her husband’s election efforts, forming a political action committee and spending some $53,000 to campaign against him, including distributing disparaging fliers.
What do the following two things have in common: The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision allowing government workers to opt out of paying union dues and an effort by liberal activists to pass a rent-control initiative in November? On the surface, both issues directly involve the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. AFSCME was the defendant in the court’s Janus v. AFSCME case and its affiliate supports the California campaign.
More significantly, such promotion of a political initiative that has nothing to do with worker rights illustrates the wisdom of the high court’s Janus ruling. The court declared that all mandatory dues – even for collective-bargaining activities – are a violation of the First Amendment’s right to free association. Government workers may now opt out of all union payments, which means that public-sector unions will have less time and cash to promote these kinds of nefarious left-wing ballot campaigns. It’s the very definition of the “win-win” cliché.
The Janus decision changed the status quo that went back to 1977, when the Supreme Court split the free-speech baby in the Abooddecision. Back then, government employees had to pay union dues – and the unions were free to use the money however they preferred, on everything from contract negotiations to political action. It clearly was wrong to force conservatives to fund liberal political activities (and vice versa) or to belong to a group they found offensive.
