The National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers lost more than 59,000 working members combined during the 2021-22 school year, according to U.S. Department of Labor disclosure reports.
School district staffing levels were not to blame. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that local schools added 95,000 employees between September 2021 and September 2022. Nor were the membership losses confined to specific areas of the country. Every state affiliate but one that was required to file a disclosure report lost working members.
One year ago, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a 40-year precedent by forbidding public-sector unions from collecting dues from nonmembers. Leading up to the Janus v. AFSCME decision, union leaders openly feared a crippling loss of members and revenue once public employees were financially free to do as they please.
We now know those dire predictions were premature, at the very least, especially when it comes to teachers. Teacher unions have experienced some turnover, but union members did not crowd the exit door. In fact, one recent news article stated that the National Education Association is reporting a slight increase in membership.
A new national poll from the Teacher Freedom project sheds light on why these losses were lower than unions feared — and it is not what union leaders are likely to acknowledge. Despite the fact that many teachers have remained in the union, leaders should still be greatly concerned. The “One Year After Janus” survey was conducted by YouGov, sampling 1,003 U.S. teachers.
Just over a third of teachers say they would prefer to negotiate salary and benefits for themselves, according to a newly released survey from a group that advocates for choice in union membership.
And teachers under the age 35 are significantly more likely than older teachers to want to negotiate their own contract.
The group Teacher Freedom, which provides information on how to opt out of union membership, surveyed 2,000 teachers last spring in 22 states that were affected by the Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision. (A polling company conducted the survey through an online opt-in panel in which members sign up to take surveys in exchange for rewards.)
The namesake of a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision involving union fees says Kansas law should be changed to ensure the rights of public employees.
Mark Janus testified before a Senate panel Monday on legislation opposed by unions that represent teachers, police, firefighters, corrections officers and electrical workers.
Senate Bill 175 would allow public employees to stop paying union dues at any time, even if they signed up for a yearlong membership. The bill also would require employers to send annual notices to union members to let them know they can forgo payments at any time.
Today, the House Labor and Industry Committee passed the employee rights notification bill, HB 785. Sponsored by Rep. Kate Klunk (R-Hanover), this legislation ensures public employees can make informed choices about union membership.
Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Janus v. AFSCME that unions can no longer force public employees to pay union fees just to keep their jobs. The problem? Pennsylvania law still allows unions to impose these “fair share fees” on non-members—violating the Court’s ruling. Plus, government doesn’t have to tell workers about their options.
Without proactive legislative protections, workers are being deprived of their constitutional rights to freely choose what organizations they join and support.
Francisco Molina knows what it takes to overcome adversity. Raised by a single mother from just 3 years old, Molina endured severe abuse. He wore long-sleeved shirts to school to cover the scars from his mother’s beatings.
Such experiences can make or break a person. Molina did not break. Instead, he got stronger.
Molina started a family, earned a degree in human services, and, in 2006, took a job as a social services aide with the Lehigh County Office of Children and Youth to help abused children. He eventually joined the union, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Local 668, and became a shop steward.
Before Janus, New Jersey public school teachers Susan Fischer and Jeanette Speck, along with five million other public sector workers, were required to subsidize a union even if they were not union members.
“You have to pay if you join and pay if you don’t join,” said Fischer. “That was so un-American to us.”
Days after the monumental ruling at the Supreme Court, both teachers resigned their union memberships under the Janus decision’s protection of their choice to completely refrain from supporting a union. However, the teachers were informed that they could only stop payments and withdraw their membership during an annual 10-day window period.
Five California educators on Monday filed a lawsuit seeking to stop the state’s top teachers’ union from collecting dues through mandatory paycheck deductions, the latest in a series of similar legal challenges filed across the country.
The lawsuit challenging the California Teachers Association’s mandatory collection of dues follows a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on June 27 barring the practice in the public sector.
“These dues are a negative financial impact to a lot of teachers who live in the Bay Area where there is a high cost of living,” said Bethany Mendez, one of the plaintiffs and a special education teacher at the Fremont Unified School District. Mendez said she pays $1,500 per year in union dues.
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Five California educators on Monday filed a lawsuit seeking to stop the state’s top teachers union from collecting dues through mandatory paycheck deductions, the latest in a series of similar legal challenges filed across the country.
The lawsuit challenging the California Teachers Association’s mandatory collection of dues follows a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on June 27 barring the practice in the public sector.
“These dues are a negative financial impact to a lot of teachers who live in the Bay Area where there is a high cost of living,” said Bethany Mendez, one of the plaintiffs and a special education teacher at the Fremont Unified School District. Mendez said she pays $1,500 per year in union dues.
Labor leaders are enjoying a round of self-congratulatory press, claiming to have survived a Supreme Court ruling that these very leaders, just months earlier, were predicting could spell the end of the labor movement. Their celebrations ignore the country’s trend toward worker freedom.
One year ago, on Feb. 26, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Janus v. AFSCME. The court issued its landmark ruling in June, deciding that public employees cannot be forced to pay a union as a condition of employment.
Union officials expressed outrage. Lily Eskelsen García, president of the National Education Association (NEA), called it a “radical” ruling. Lee Saunders, president of American Federation of State, County Municipal Employees (AFSCME), called it an “unprecedented and nefarious political attack” on the labor movement.
