Teachers unions across the country are reeling from the Supreme Court decision Wednesday that could limit their funding and political influence.
The decision, in Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, keeps unions from collecting fees from non-members. Here’s more about the case and how major figures are responding.
Notably, U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, who has long made her antipathy for teachers unions known, has yet to weigh in. We’ll update when she does.
By Mike Antonucci, The74
The officers and elected representatives of the National Education Association are rarely at odds with one another on major issues. A conspicuous exception to the rule has been the recommendation of candidates for president of the United States and the union’s process for making that choice.
It seems an odd bone of contention, since NEA always endorses the Democratic candidate. Many national and state affiliate union representatives are delegates and superdelegates to the Democratic National Convention. Still, choosing among Democrats and deciding when to endorse the proper one has caused a lot of friction within the union.
The 2016 primary battle between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders was the source of much internal anguish, prompting groups of NEA activists to propose sweeping changes to how the union makes its recommendations. The common element of these plans was to open up the endorsement process to larger groups of members. But it has been an uphill fight, and next month will determine whether the rank and file will get an increased say, or if the top echelon of NEA leaders maintains its hold.
By Colin Sharkey, Executive Vice President, Association of American Educators (AAE)
As we celebrate Teacher Appreciation Week this week, teachers across the nation remain remarkably underappreciated. In at least five states so far this year, educators are voicing their discontent by organizing walkouts and strikes to protest lagging salaries and woefully inadequate supplies. Viral social media posts of classrooms in deplorable conditions and stories of educators moonlighting in the gig economy to make ends meet have likely increased support for more investment in education.
While there are many education policy questions that divide Americans, we can all agree that our hardworking and talented educators deserve great compensation, clean and safe workplaces, and our genuine appreciation for doing a job critical to our country’s future.
Here’s something else we should all agree on: educators, as professionals who are tasked with teaching our children to become independent, critical thinkers, should have the power to decide whether or not to join and fund the national teachers unions.
The freedom to fund a union – or not – means freeing teachers to support the policies they choose, not solely the ones dictated by union leadership. For those educators who think unions are too focused on advancing a partisan political agenda instead of meeting their professional needs, freedom means the dignity of keeping their own money. For those teachers who choose to fund a union, their dues will be more impactful, since they are no longer coerced but earned annually by satisfying voluntary members.
By Julie Underwood, Phi Delta Kappan
The Supreme Court will soon issue a ruling on whether public employees, including teachers, can be required to pay union fees.
Nearly every U.S. Supreme Court case is significant, but this year brings a remarkable case with the potential of overturning 40-year-old precedent and dramatically changing public employment law. On February 26, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, a case involving public employee union fees. Although the parties are neither educators nor schools, this case is of interest to all unions who represent public workers, including teachers and other public school employees. It boils down to whether the government, as an employer, can require nonunion workers to contribute to the union.
Unions at the Supreme Court
The Janus case has a certain déjà vu feel to it. In January 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, 136 S.Ct. 1083 (2016), another case involving public employee union fees. There, Rebecca Friedrichs and nine other teachers who were not union members argued they should not be forced to pay “fair share” fees to the California Teachers Association. Fair share fees are the costs nonunion members are required to pay to the union to offset the union’s cost of representing the entire bargaining unit during negotiations and related discussions. The nonunion members who brought the case argued that the union expressed views with which they did not agree and that they should not be required to contribute funds to the group. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in favor of the union, basing its decision on the unanimous 1997 U.S. Supreme Court case, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education.
By The74
At long last, the Supreme Court has heard the oral arguments on the much-discussed Janus v. AFSCME case. Given the makeup of the court, most anticipate a ruling in favor of the plaintiff, Mark Janus, meaning that teachers who choose not to be union members will no longer have to pay annual fees. Because states take different approaches to teachers unions, a decision in favor of Janus will have considerable impact in some states and little to no direct effect in others.
Although the total financial impact of such a decision on teachers unions is difficult to predict, the most likely scenario is slow but steady erosion in union members, not a steep, immediate fall.
Where teachers can collectively bargain
To assess the impact of a ruling in favor of the plaintiff, it’s necessary to know where teachers are currently allowed to collectively bargain and where unions may collect agency fees. Using data from the National Council on Teacher Quality’s Teacher Contract Database, we examine which states are most likely to feel a direct and immediate impact from such a ruling.
By EdWeek
As the two major national teachers’ unions brace for a U.S. Supreme Court case that could cause a major blow to their membership numbers and revenue, they laid out their arguments in support of public-sector workers being mandated to pay monthly union fees.
In the case, Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Council 31, Illinois health-care worker Mark Janus argues that he shouldn’t have to pay monthly union fees to keep his job, especially because the fees may go toward advocacy that he disagrees with. He pays about $540 a year in compulsory fees
